Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 1 April 2003 (44th General Assembly, 5th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 8)
2003-04-01
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 1, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 8
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our routine proceedings today, I would like to welcome to the
gallery a former Member for Burin-Placentia West District, Mr. Glenn Tobin.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, recently, a Newfoundland born artist was given the highest award
offered by the Province of Ontario for his work in assisting students and for
promotion of the arts. The Order of Ontario honours individuals who help and
enrich the lives of others within their respective fields.
Earlier this year, David Blackwood who was born and raised in Wesleyville, I
think, now New West Valley, and who continues to maintain a very strong contact
with this Province was bestowed with this honour. Mr Blackwood's award winning
art work gained him admission to the Ontario College of Art in 1959. This artist
is probably best known for his creation of one of the largest thematically
linked series of prints in Canadian history, the Lost Party. This series of
fifty etchings focused on the 1914 Newfoundland sealing disaster.
Mr. Blackwood is also a member of the Order of Canada which he received in
Mr. Speaker, I ask that members of this House join with me in congratulating
Mr. Blackwood in receiving yet another award in recognition of his life's work
and passion. We are so very proud of him.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to pay tribute to the late Stephen Carter of Witless Bay. Mr.
Carter passed away on Sunday, March 30, at the remarkable age of 102. He was
born on October 26, 1900. Mr. Carter lived a very rewarding and fulfilling life.
He and his wife of seventy-one years, Ethel, who only passed away five years ago
at the age of ninety-six, raised a terrific family.
Mr. Carter had enjoyed excellent health until this past year. I had the
opportunity to visit him on each of his last four birthdays, the most recent
being October 26 this fall when he was quick to point out that his son, Steve,
who has the same birthday would be getting the pension for the first time. He
had turned sixty-five. So, the man was concerned even in the very later years
with his family, and that was typical of him his entire life.
I am sure this House, Mr. Speaker, will join with me in sending our
condolences to the Carter family.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand before this House and
congratulate a former Member of the House of Assembly for St. John's North on
being inducted into the Order of Canada. Other inductees from this Province are:
Shannie Duff, Terry Kelly and Miller Ayre.
Mr. Speaker, Phil Warren is a former Head of the Department of Education at
Memorial. Dr. Warren represented the District of St. John's North from 1989 to
1993, at which time he sought the nomination, won and was elected by the people
of the district to represent them in this Legislature.
Shannie Duff is presently a City Councillor and another former MHA.
Miller Ayre is the publisher of The Telegram and former President of
Rotary Club.
Terry Kelly is a singer songwriter who has won the East Coast Music Award and
has been a Juno nominee.
These four Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are among sixty-eight people to
be inducted this year. The Order of Canada recognizes people who have made a
difference to our country. This award symbolizes the highest honour for lifetime
achievement.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in
congratulating these four great individuals on receiving the Order of Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, from the homemade basketball net on the side of the road in
Patrick's Cove, Placentia Bay to the hardwood court of the University of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Last evening, Carl confirmed that he would be entering the 2003 NBA early
draft. The draft is slated for June 26, 2003 at New York's Madison Square
Garden.
Many people in the Province have watched Carl pursue his dream over the past
number of years. To reach this point is no doubt a testament of his own
commitment, drive and determination to be the best.
Carl began this tremendous journey at Fatima Academy, a school of
approximately 200 students located in St. Bride's on the Cape Shore, where he
is both loved and respected.
His celebrity is no less in Hawaii where following the final home game a few
has been major news in all the local media and has recently graced the pages of Sports
Illustrated and ESPN . Along with all that, he is due to graduate in
May with a degree in Liberal Studies specializing in sports management from the
University of Hawaii.
Declaring himself for the 2003 NBA draft is a major step for Carl to make. He
has until June 19 to opt out but his chances of success are tremendous. There is
no doubt that this level of competition is beyond what many of us can imagine
but I am sure we will all be in his corner as the big day approaches.
I will ask all members of this House to join with me today in wishing Carl
Newfoundlander and Labradorian to play in the NBA.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate a former Liberal Member of
this House of Assembly, Bill Callahan, who will be named tomorrow as one of
three new members to the St. John's Maple Leafs Media Wall of Fame located in
the Bob Cole Media Center at Mile One Stadium here in St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Callahan joins former Telegram reporter Bernie
Bennett and the late radio announcer, Jim Browne as the latest inductees to this
Media Wall of Fame, which includes such notables as the late George McLaren, Dee
Murphy and Bob Cole among its members.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Callahan started his sports reporting career in 1949 with
the Western Star in Corner Brook. He reported on numerous sporting events
throughout the Province but especially hockey during his eight years as sports
director for CJON Television and Radio in St. John's.
Following his sports reporting era, Callahan moved into the managing editor
and publisher roles with several newspapers including The Evening Telegram
and The Daily News. He also served the people as the MHA for the District
of Port au Port in 1966 and later was named to Cabinet as Minister of Mines,
Agriculture and Resources in July, 1968.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this hon. House, I want to
congratulate Mr. Bill Callahan, Bernie Bennett, and the family of the late Jim
Browne on this recognition by the St. John's Maple Leafs and dedication to the
sports community in the Province.
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. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my hon. colleagues in the
House of this government's action, and the actions we intend to take regarding
the privatization of Port Harmon.
Today the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will file an application
for judicial review
with the Federal Court of Canada Trial Division on the decision of the hon.
David Collenette, Minister Responsible for Transport Canada, to divest the
Stephenville port to a private interest. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is taking
place as I present this statement.
The Province is basing its application on its belief that Transport Canada
failed to adhere to the Marine Policy of Canada Act, the Treasury Board Policy
on the Disposal of Surplus Real Property, and the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. The application is also based on the belief the Transport
Minister did not appreciate the corporate distinction between the Stephenville
Port Authority and the Port Harmon Authority Ltd. This Province is also claiming
that the Transport Minister failed to observe a principle of procedural fairness
towards the Province in his decision to transfer the Stephenville port to the
Port Harmon Authority Ltd.
According to the National Marine Policy, regional and local ports owned by
Transport Canada must first be offered to other federal departments and then to
the province. Only if the Province is not interested in acquiring these
facilities may Transport Canada then seek an expression of interest from local
stakeholders.
Similarly, pursuant to the federal Treasury Board Policy, federal real
property that is being offered for sale must first be offered simultaneously to
federal departments, Crown corporations, provincial governments and then
municipal governments.
Mr. Speaker, this government was never given the opportunity by Transport
Canada to negotiate the specific divestiture of Port Harmon. At no point did
this government advise Transport Canada it had no interest in the divestiture of
this port. In fact, the Province repeatedly advised Transport Canada of its
interest in Port Harmon and asked to be apprised of any developments with
respect to the transfer of the port. Transport Canada ignored these requests.
Furthermore, the Transport Minister, as the responsible authority under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, failed to ensure completion of the
required environmental assessment before the transfer of the Stephenville port.
Mr. Speaker, the Province believes there is an overriding public interest at
stake in the transfer of the public port facilities, such as the Stephenville
port. We are, therefore, requesting the federal court to quash the decision of
the Transport Minister to divest the Stephenville port to the Port Harmon
Authority.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this government is finally taking some action on this issue. If
this government had taken some action earlier, it would have been -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, they do not like to hear the response over
there.
Mr. Speaker, if this government has taken action before, it would have been
federal court intervention instead of a federal court review.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: This judicial review is asking the federal government to
basically see if proper action was taken, proper procedure followed, and if
there was fairness in this situation. Obviously, there was no fairness on this
issue when it came to the privatization of Port Harmon. They did not follow the
proper procedure. It was not offered to this provincial government, as they were
supposed to have done.
Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange; last week I asked in this House of
Assembly why this government, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, would
not seek a court injunction. The Minister of Justice stood up and basically
washed his hands of it, saying that, when you look at this situation, when you
look at any court request for the court injunction, you have to look at the
likelihood of winning. Yet, in so doing before that he had asked, and basically
requested, that the Town of Stephenville - encouraged the Town of Stephenville -
seek a court injunction.
Mr. Speaker, what hypocrisy, when they say they could not win it themselves;
yet, they support and encourage the Town of Stephenville to seek a court
injunction. They are playing pure politics with it. Hopefully now, Mr. Speaker,
with this there will be something done to resolve this issue and the Port Harmon
will not be privatized - as it is now.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: We hope that the minister will seek some retribution here
and have this problem finally resolved.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see that the government is not giving up on this issue, the
privatization of a resource such as this, to put in private hands what should be
a public authority and a public service. This is a continuation of many policies
of privatization and divestitures that are going on in this country. In fact,
one interesting note, Mr. Speaker, is that the MP for Burin-St. George's
suggested that this had to be done because if it did not happen by March 31 the
whole thing would lapse. Mr. Speaker, on March 31, the Minister of Transport
indicated and announced that Transport Canada's Port Divestiture Program will
be extended for three full years, until March 31, 2006. There was no need to
rush into this. This is something that obviously has been cooked up between the
minister and some local interests in Stephenville. It has to be stopped.
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: I hope that this is successful. I want to assure members that
this matter will be brought to the floor of the House of Commons by our
representatives in the House of Commons for the New Democratic Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy.
There has been some notion, I guess more fact, that there have been some
design changes as it relates to the work associated with the Bull Arm site.
Individuals associated with the project, or hoping to work on the project, have
contacted our office indicating that
whereas this agreement with the contractor
was a fixed price and a fixed time, that if there are any design changes or
slowdowns, the question being asked is: What impact will that have on the
industrial agreement benefits package negotiated by the government?
Mr. Speaker, I know that officials in the minister's department have been
looking at this and I want to ask the minister this question today: What
meetings has he had? What is the advice coming from the department? If there are
design changes, what impact will that have on the industrial agreement benefits
as it relates to the people of the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
There will be no impact on the benefits for the Province. We have an
agreement for that development and that agreement will be honoured. If there are
any problems that Kiewit have with their fixed amount contract, that will be
their problem to deal with.
Our officials have been talking to the companies and the unions involved and
we are hoping that we are going to get some extra work for Bull Arm as a result
of these negotiations. Contrary to what the Member for Trinity North said in his
press release the other day, we are doing everything possible to try to maximize
the benefits for our Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: The member criticized me for being hopeful about getting work
on the Bull Arm site. Mr. Speaker, we are hopeful about getting in excess of the
80 per cent of the work that we are guaranteed. We are guaranteed 80 per cent
and we are confident of getting that. What we are hopeful about is getting in
excess of that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what should be at stake for any government is not 60 per cent or
70 per cent or 80 per cent, is that if it can be done here, it should be done
here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is the issue.
Now, the minister tried to avoid the question, but there is a legitimate
concern and he knows it. Officials in his department also know it. I have talked
to people in Marystown associated with the union, et cetera, and there are some
negotiations going on for extra pipework, but let me ask him this question.
There is also a great deal of concern that people have been informed that big
bore pipe, which is pipe over two inches, that all which is a significant
component dealing with the modules, much of that, if not all of it, will be done
outside the Province. Can the minister confirm that that is actually so?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: One thing I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member
has been speaking to people in Marystown and has been told by the people in
Marystown that they are very happy with what is happening down there. They are
confident they are going to get the work that they are supposed to get, the work
that is being allocated.
It was always understood that a certain amount of work would not be done
there. Like the hon. member, we would all like to see 100 per cent of all of
these jobs done in this Province by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but that
is not the agreement we have this time.
On the Hibernia development we got about a quarter of the work that we could
have gotten in the Province. On Terra Nova, we got something under 50 per cent.
On this job, Mr. Speaker, we are going to get at least 80 per cent, but we think
we are going to get a fair bit more than 80 per cent and that is what we are
working on. Some of it will go outside the Province and there is nothing we can
do about that. There is only a certain amount of work that can be done in the
Province. It cannot all be done at this stage.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure that anybody who is working in the Province today are happy,
particularly the people of Marystown, given the fact this was the government
that sold it to Friede Goldman, that sold it out that there was no work and no
commitments made. So, anybody who is working in Marystown today, Mr. Speaker, I
am sure they are happy to be associated and working with developments and
projects associated with own resource industries.
The minister did not answer the question again, so I will ask him. This work
that I am talking about, big bore pipe, prefab pipe which is over two inches,
was scheduled to be done in Marystown. My information, and what people
associated with that industry down in the shipyard are telling me, that that
project or that
section of work will be done now outside of the Province
completely and then brought back to the Province only to be assembled. The
amount of the workforce associated with this work could be up to 250 pipefitters.
So it is a significant number, I say to the minister.
My question is, to him again, as a result of design changes in the project -
and that happens, I am not saying that should not happen, that occurs - but as a
result of the design changes are these the types of situations that are
occurring? In other words, the work that was supposed to be done on big bore,
two inch pipe that could affect 250 pipefitters, is that now being done outside
the Province? Yes or no, minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, there is a significant amount of work that is
going to be done outside of the Province because that is part of the agreement.
The understanding was that up to 20 per cent -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. NOEL: It doesn't look like your members want you to hear the
answer, Mr. House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, if you would give an answer (inaudible).
MR. NOEL: I am trying to. It takes a while to get around to an answer
with all the interruptions you get here.
The reality is, that what you are concerned about is part of the 20 per cent.
We are guaranteed 80 per cent. What you are talking about is not part of that 80
per cent, it is part of the 20 per cent that the company has the option to do
outside the Province. Now, the company is trying to do as much of that as they
can in the Province. We are trying to do everything we can to get as much of it
done in the Province, and we are carrying on negotiations with people to try to
have more work done in Bull Arm that could help us get a larger portion of that
20 per cent.
What is happening, and what the member is concerned about, has nothing to do
with the 80 per cent that we are guaranteed for this Province. It is the extra
work, and it was always understood that a certain amount of that would be going
outside the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear to the minister what I am
concerned about, not his particular view or spin on it. What I am concerned
about is that there are 250 pipefitters unemployed in this Province who could be
working in this Province. That is what we are concerned about.
With respect to the question I asked on big bore pipe, that was scheduled to
be done at Marystown. That is what we are being told. It is not now going to be
done in Marystown. I ask the question: Why is that so, Minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, there doesn't seem to be any point in answering
the hon. member's questions because he won't accept the answers that he is
given.
What I have told him - this is for the third time - is that the work he is
talking about was never intended to go to Marystown. There was always a
possibility for that work going outside the Province. Now, the reality, Mr.
Speaker, is that on this White Rose project there are presently something in
excess, I think, of 400 people employed in Marystown. There are upwards of 300
people employed in St. John's, working on the drafting and the engineering.
So, there are 700 people working on that project now, Mr. Speaker, and we expect
to have up to 1,000 in a few months time.
We are making every effort we can to get as much as we can of that additional
20 per cent, but it takes time. We are working with the unions, we are working
with the companies. Everybody would like to see all of the pipefitters employed
who are able to do this work in our Province, but we have to work at it, Mr.
Speaker, we have to try to get the agreements that are necessary to make these
things happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister puts off like it was some big
political coup for the government to get 80 per cent of the work of a project
and a resource that belongs to us anyway. That is not the attitude, Minister. It
belongs to us anyway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is, the question -
AN HON. MEMBER: Foolish.
MR. E. BYRNE: Who said foolish? Who are the ministers over there saying
it is foolish, when 250 people who could be working in the Province should be
working in the Province? What is foolish about that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Minister of Fisheries.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the Minister of Fisheries would like to go down
to Marystown and talk to the pipefitters who are going to have to transfer out
to other provinces to do work on our own project. There is nothing foolish about
that, I say, Minister!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Would not the minister agree that what really is at stake
and what really the government should be working for is that any and all work
that could be done in this Province should be done in this Province? Wouldn't
you agree with that, Minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the hon. member review some
editions of Hansard, because we have said that several times in this Province.
If there are 250 pipefitters who are unemployed, that is 250 too many. There
are many other people unemployed in this Province who we are trying to get jobs
for, but what I have said is that we are getting far more out of this
development than we have gotten out of the previous two developments. We are
going to get a lot more. We are guaranteed 80 per cent and we are working on
getting as much as we can of the additional 20 per cent. We are making some
progress. We will see how much we will get before the project is through, but
the reality is that we are getting substantial benefits for our Province and we
are working as much as we can to make sure that we get jobs for as many people
as possible.
The hon. member is not the only one concerned about creating jobs for our
people. We are concerned about it and we are doing something about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In three or four responses now the minister has said we are working on it.
Could the minister tell us how he is working on it? Who has he met with? What
has he told the oil companies? What has he told the contractor? What are his
officials telling him? What strategies are he and his government putting in
place so that we can really see what working on it means? Can you elaborate,
Minister, on what you are actually doing or what working on it actually means to
the people of the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that one of my officials is in
Marystown today, speaking with people there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: They are speaking with people there about getting new
opportunities for people in our Province. Various officials of our department
have met with, have had telephone conferences with, people who are involved in
this, both unions and contractors and individuals who are looking for jobs. We
can only talk to people. We can only try to facilitate things. We can only do as
much as we can to make the Bull Arm site, for instance, as attractive as
possible to contractors to put jobs there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. NOEL: We are doing everything that we can, Mr. Speaker. If the hon.
member has some specific suggestions about additional things that can be done,
it would be helpful if he would say what they are; but, like what that party is
doing in every regard these days, and like the leader of that party is saying in
the paper today - he is saying, trust me. He wants the people of the Province to
trust him.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. NOEL: I think the people of the Province would have a lot more trust
in you if you would be a little bit specific about what you do. The only thing -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.
A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy raises an
interesting phrase: trust me. Let me ask him this question: Who should the
people of the Province trust, us or them? Should they trust a government who
sold out the resource? Should they trust a government who let modules from
Hibernia go? Should they trust a government that let work go to Korea? Or should
they trust in a party that puts people in Newfoundland and Labrador first and,
in this instance, people who should be working must be working. Who should they
trust, Minister, you or us?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. NOEL: The hon. member is correct.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. The people of the
Province have decided who they trust. They trust the party that they have put
their trust in four times in a row now, in elections in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: They trust the party that did the Voisey's Bay development
that is creating hundreds of jobs in our Province -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: - and billions of dollars in economic development over the next
few years. They trust the party which has developed our petroleum opportunities
and is creating thousands of jobs for our people and billions of dollars in
revenue to our Province -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: - and billions of dollars in contributions to our Province.
Contrary to the party on the other side, whose leader has said that if he was
Premier of the Province there would be no Voisey's Bay development and there
would probably be no Churchill Falls hydro development if they were the
government of this Province, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. NOEL: That is another project that we are working on and we intend to
develop in the interest of our people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the shellfish industry, particularly the crab fishery, has been
touted by many as the backbone of today's fishery. Crab has, for most people
in most areas, replaced cod as the revenue generator in this industry.
Yesterday, DFO science released its Stock Status Report on crab, and it is fair
to say there is more than ample reason for concern. The report says, for
example, that the exploitable biomass index in 2J, off Labrador, has declined by
94 per cent since 1998. It says that in 2J, off Labrador, 3K, off the Northeast
Coast, and 3Ps off the South Coast of the Island, catch rates have declined
steadily and significantly since 1998. Recruitment in the short term is expected
to be low, and long-term recruitment prospects are uncertain.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture:
Is there any joint committee of the provincial and federal Departments of
Fisheries investing the impact of reductions in crab stocks, and is there any
planning underway as to how best deal with the reductions should they occur?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, because the
information that was released yesterday with regard to the crab Stock Status
Report obviously has some concern for all of us, especially with the downward
trend in 2J and 3Ps area.
Mr. Speaker, at the present time, DFO is hosting consultation sessions in all
of the areas which the Stock Status Report referred to yesterday, but primarily
in the areas where the stocks have taken a downward trend. They will launch a
consultation with the fisherpeople this week in those particular areas and have
some discussions with them in terms of impact.
As for our department, obviously we are very concerned about it. We are
already gathering the data in terms of what the impacts would be if there was to
be some decrease in quota in those particular areas and how it will affect
people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &
White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given the negative tone of the Stock Status Report yesterday, Mr. Speaker,
and considering that the rumours of this have been circulating for a number of
months now - and I know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are planning
consultations, and that has nothing to do with what this provincial Department
of Fisheries and Aquaculture are doing.
I would like to ask the minister this, Mr. Speaker: What is her department
going to recommend to DFO management? What recommendations are they preparing on
quota levels, and what should be done with quota levels in 2J, 3K, and 3Ps in
particular? What is the government doing to prepare for the fallout, should
significant quota cuts occur?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I think that yesterday this report was released. We had some
indications leading up to this, that this might be the case. Those indications
came primarily from fisherpeople themselves. I do not think it is any secret;
people out there in the industry have been telling us they are seeing a
difference in their catch rates, the catch rates are down, the amount of time
that it takes them to fulfill their quotas have changed. They, themselves, have
asked for certain measures to be implemented over that period of time.
In the next few days, we will certainly be monitoring the consultations that
DFO is undertaking in these particular areas. We will use the information
solicited from these particular industry representatives in terms of preparing
our own prospectus to DFO, but I think it is important that it is not the
provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture that will make a decision as
to what the status of this particular fishery will be. It will be entirely the
decision of DFO. We will certainly consult with DFO, consult with the union, and
receive input from those fishers in determining how we deal with that process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits
& White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days I received this
report from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. It is called: 2002
Seafood Industry Year In Review. The report, again this year, glosses over or
ignores the fundamental significant problems that are in this industry. It
ignores and downplays the significant problems that are in the shrimp peeling
industry, and it ignores or downplays the significant problems that are in the
crab resource sector.
Mr. Speaker, the minister says that the decision on this matter will be
entirely DFO's. Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with this department and with
this government. This the question, Mr. Speaker, and they are eager to hear it:
Why has this government, year after year, continued to ignore and downplay the
significant problems in this industry? Is it because they do not recognize the
problems, Mr. Speaker, or is it that they do not know how to deal with it?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that the people
on this side of the House knows how to manage and deal with the fishery in this
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we saw revenues in this particular industry exceed
$1 billion in landed value.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, last year we seen a $1 billion landed value in
this fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the kind of impact we know
that is having on the economy of our Province.
When it comes to scientific data, when it comes to looking at quota
allocations, it is the jurisdiction of DFO. Yes, of course, we have
opportunities that have input. We do have input, Mr. Speaker, but we also follow
a process. We do not arbitrarily look at a report one day and pass opinion the
next day.
Mr. Speaker, we will consult with the people that are affected. We will
gather the information. We will discuss it with DFO. We will have talks with the
FFAW and, Mr. Speaker, then we will make the appropriate representation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
Mr. Speaker, today in this Province there are roughly 1,000 people, mostly
seniors, who are getting home support services from agencies. There are some
twenty-five agencies operating in the Province. Yesterday those agencies advised
the minister that they are not prepared anymore to deliver the services to their
clients with the rate government is paying. Can he tell us today what
contingency plan he has in place for those 1,000 clients serviced by those
agencies?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, officials from my department yesterday met with representatives of
the agencies, as the hon. member has referenced. On the basis of those
discussions some concerns were expressed, and we take these concerns seriously.
Despite what the hon. member may be suggesting in terms of our attitude towards
it - in fact, in this current budget we have committed some $70 million towards
this particular service. In fact, over the past two years we have seen an
increase in wages to the workers who are involved there of some 24 per cent. In
real dollars, over two years, it has meant a $2 increase in wages. Mr. Speaker,
this speaks to the value and the importance that we see in this service that is
there.
Unfortunately, the hon. member is right, in this particular budget we did not
have the means whereby we could advance in this year's budget a further
increase in terms of the monies that is allocated to that particular area. But,
Mr. Speaker, it is not that we underestimate or downplay the importance of the
industry. We understand and appreciate the importance of the agencies who
deliver it.
Mr. Speaker, yes, in fact, we have looked at the possibility that if - as
these agencies are suggesting - they withdraw services, at that point in time my
officials are looking at and developing contingency plans.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier.
The Premier wants to have private nursing home care in Corner Brook backed by
a threat to delay the needs of seniors in the Corner Brook area for eight to ten
years. Mr. Speaker, in addition to threatening jobs, wages, and benefits,
private nursing home arrangements are a threat to patient care. Why does the
Premier want to go down this road of privatization instead of finding public
solutions and give this project the priority it deserves?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the question about a very important issue with respect to
long-term care in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a huge issue for all of us in
the Province. It continues to be an area of growing concern, not only in Corner
Brook, but in Avalon North, here in St. John's, Clarenville area and other
places.
Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with the issue in any manner of threat. I
actually regret the inference made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party,
the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. We do not deal with any issues by way of
threat. What we are saying, quite frankly, to the people of the Province is
this, we believe there is an opportunity to provide, sooner rather than later,
the long-term care needs for the people in Corner Brook, in Avalon North, in St.
John's, in the Province. It is clear, from the Budget, that we had been
debating up until yesterday - I guess there are no questions about it today,
certainly not from the Official Opposition. They must have had all their
concerns answered in just one day in Question Period. There are none today.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this, when we are running close to a
$300 million deficit, we obviously looked at the priorities and said through the
normal processes of financing. We are just talking about ways of financing.
Through the normal financing we would have to add immediately, under any system,
the cash system, the consolidated system or the accrual system, under any of
them, we would have to add immediately to the provincial debt in order to take
care of the long-term care needs in the normal financing matters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the debate that I hope we have publicly -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
In the debate, that I hope we will continue to have publicly, the care needs
of the seniors and elders can be met. The workers are all taken care of through
successor rights in contracts. There is no reduction in benefits. There is
nobody who loses any jobs, and the people who win are the people who need the
service. That is the kind of government that I lead, Mr. Speaker, which tries to
do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The public pays whether it is lease costs or debt, and lease costs are just
as much an obligation to the public treasury.
Mr. Speaker, the Chancellor Park study showed that the rate of infection in
the private versus public system was twice as high and that medication errors
were, in fact, as much as fifty times as much with about half of the residents
having a medication error in eight months. In fact, a recent analysis of
forty-three peer reviewed comparative studies of long-term care facilities
showed that not-for-profit facilities have a considerable advantage in almost
every single dimension of patient care and facilities.
Mr. Speaker, why does this government not recognize its responsibility to
seniors in this Province by providing for seniors' nursing care through the
public system and give it the kind of priority that it deserves, not just find
excuses for going down the private route?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, it is not a matter of going down a private route. I think the language
is completely and totally wrong. I believe the hon. member knows it, as a matter
of fact. It is publicly funded health care. As he indicated, whether we build it
ourselves or whether someone else builds it and we lease it back, it is still
paid for by the taxpayers. It is publicly funded health care. What we have is,
we have a real need. We have a need that is real and apparent and growing today
under normal financial circumstances. So we are not talking about levels of
care; we are talking about having fully accredited public institutions providing
levels of service equal to, if not beyond, what is in the institutions that we
run today, and affordable so that we can have the service available to the
people who are in need today, rather than ask them to wait five years, ten
years, fifteen years, until we can find some way to probably afford it under a
different financing arrangement.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the debate publicly. We will enter into it. It
will be focused and centered in Corner Brook first and foremost, and we do look
forward to having discussions with all hon members, everybody in the general
public, all stakeholders -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - and we would hope that it would transcend politics and
look at meeting the needs of those people who today are going without the
long-term care that they so desperately need to have provided for them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery today another
former Member of the House of Assembly from Grand Falls, and former Speaker, Mr.
Len Simms.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave
to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice
Of Optometry." Bill 9
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can revert to doing reports? There
were some reports to be presented here and I think the minister missed the call
of the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: We will revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special
Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the 2001-2002 Annual Report for the
Department of Education, which highlights the activities of the department for
that fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table for the hon. members, fourteen
additional reports for agencies which report to my department. They are: the
Labrador School Board, the Northern Peninsula/Labrador South School Board, the
Corner Brook-Deer Lake-St. Barbe School Board, the Cormack Trail School Board,
the Baie Verte/Central/Connaigre School Board, the Lewisporte/Gander School
Board, the Burin School Board, the Vista School Board, the Avalon West School
Board, the Avalon East School Board, the Conseil Scolaire Francophone
Terre-Neuve Et Du Labrador School Board, the Provincial Information and Library
Resources Board, the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation,
and the Literacy Development Council.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a
bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act." Bill 8
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I present a petition today on behalf of several residents in my district,
namely in the area of St. Vincent's-Peter's River-St. Stephens, communities
throughout St. Mary's Bay.
Mr. Speaker, the petition reads as follows:
To the Honourable House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland, in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador
Ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:
We the undersigned citizens of St. Mary's Bay Area hereby draw your
attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route
90, St. Mary's Bay.
WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of
the Highway Safety Act to protect the citizens not only from commuters but also
from unsafe highways; and
WHEREAS the safety of the traveling public must be the number one priority of
any government;
THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding
to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 90.
As in duty bound you petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is another petition, one of many that are coming into my
office over the last couple of weeks, that people in my district have asked me
to present here in the House. We are experiencing now, throughout not only my
district but throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what we call
the spring thaw, and our roads, Mr. Speaker, are in deplorable conditions in
many districts, and mine is no different. The people in St. Mary's Bay,
especially the people who travel Route 90, who have presented me with these
petitions, have asked me to bring this concern forward for many reasons.
We have spent many, many dollars over the past number of years developing
that part of the Irish Loop into a major tourist destination. Many people have
invested many dollars in creating tourist establishments and businesses in the
area to which people come, Mr. Speaker. Government has invested many, many
hundreds of thousands of dollars in places like St. Vincent's beach and whale
watching. Certainly, the people in my area are asking that, as we close in now
on the new tourist season for 2003, government take that into consideration.
Another concern that people have, Mr. Speaker, is the traveling back and
forth. As most people know, most of the health care is administered here in St.
John's. Many people travel back and forth on a daily basis to work from that
area, back and forth to St. John's and different parts of Conception Bay. They
have concerns that have been raised with me over the past number of weeks as I
have visited the area.
Mr. Speaker, just last weekend I had the opportunity to be down in St. Mary's
Bay and I certainly have to agree with the people who have signed these
petitions and have raised the concern with me, that this road is in serious,
serious condition and in need of repair, as many parts of the roads in my
district are.
Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, petitions will be coming forward from
other parts of the district also.
Mr. Speaker, the main concern the people have, I believe -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: Just by leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MANNING: The main concern that people have put forward to me is a
safety concern. People are traveling back and forth, children are traveling back
on forth on buses to attend the school in St. Mary's. Ambulances are traveling
back and forth over the highway, Mr. Speaker, as I said, to bring patients back
and forth to St. John's and other medical facilities. Certainly, safety is the
number one concern of the people who are operating those machines. I think to
underline the importance of the safety issue that is out there is the reason why
these people are bringing forward these petitions to me, Mr. Speaker.
As I said in my opening remarks, it is the spring thaw now and we are heading
into a very rough time on the roads throughout the Province, and I certainly
hope that the minister will take into consideration the concerns of the people
who have signed these petitions and the concerns of the people in my district as
they set out putting forward the Provincial Roads Program for 2003. We hope, Mr.
Speaker, that he will address some of the concerns in the district as they have
been put forward in these petitions.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition as well. The petition reads:
To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session
convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS the main road to the community of Winter Brook is in deplorable
condition and in desperate need of paving;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to pave the approximately three kilometres of road leading to and including part
of the community of Winter Brook, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever
pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is a
section of road which the former Minister of Works,
Services and Transportation, the present Minister of Labour, and the Government
House Leader know very well. The Government House Leader represented this area
at one time right here in this very same House. He knows very well what the
people from Winter Brook are asking for. Those people have never seen, have
never had the main road to, or through, their community paved.
It was only about five years ago, Mr. Speaker, that the people in Winter
Brook celebrated the 100 Anniversary of their community. Their plea to me is no
different than the plea that was made to the now Minister of Labour, the former
Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and the Government House Leader,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Member for Terra Nova; it is no
different. Their plea is still asking this government, this Administration, to
pave three kilometres of road; which is the only three kilometres left, I might
add. There is a beginning made.
The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation went out and
listened to the pleas of the people. Two years ago there were two kilometres of
pavement laid through most of the community of Winter Brook. Last year there was
another two kilometres, which included the Jamestown Lumber Company and part
again of the community of Winter Brook, but there still remains three kilometres
of the main road leading to Winter Brook to be paved. It does not need to be
upgraded. It is probably the cheapest three kilometres of pavement that will be
laid in this Province this year when you are talking about repairing or paving a
gravel road.
The upgrading had been done years ago, Mr. Speaker, with the promise from
this government, at that time, that it would be paved the following year. It
could not be paved the first year they said because it was not their policy to
upgrade and pave the same year. Here we are, five years after, with this member
standing here time after time asking that this particular road, the only road
leading to the community of Winter Brook, be completed for pavement in this
fiscal year, 2003.
Mr. Speaker, the people in Winter Brook are not asking for sidewalks, they
are not asking for streetlights, they are not asking for water and sewer, they
are not asking for 100 kilometres of pavement. Their plea is to have three
kilometres of pavement included in this year's Capital Works budget so the
people -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Just a second to clue up, if I could, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, all they are asking for is that this three
kilometres of road be included in this year's Capital Works Program so the
people in this community can drive over a road that most of us enjoy on a daily
basis.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition to this Hon. House.
To the Hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS the roads in the community of Georgetown have deteriorated to a point
that the safety of motorists and pedestrians are being compromised; and
WHEREAS access to residences, businesses, churches, postal facilities and
recreation areas have been seriously affected; and
WHEREAS little if any maintenance and repairs are carried out on an annual
basis;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to make a commitment to include the upgrading of this road system in its annual
capital disbursement for the upcoming fiscal year, as is duty bound your
petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I bring this to the attention of the House because obviously it
is a petition that has been signed by residents in the community of Georgetown
who are asking this government to look at this particular situation.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the pavement - if you want to call it
pavement - which is currently on the roads as we speak is at a point where, I
guess, it is not even up to the standard of a good gravel road. The potholes,
the cracks, the pavement that is missing. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a
road system that is in dire need of repair.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would draw attention to a business that is
suffering tremendously because of the conditions of the road. As a matter of
fact, this is where the petition originated. There is a business at the end of
the road in Georgetown, at the very end. There is a
section of gravel road
leading to it and the state of that road, at any time during the year, leaves a
lot to be desired.
The point of it is, Mr. Speaker, that this business - it is a beauty parlor -
depends upon customers from all over this particular area, and there are
customers who are refusing to travel over this road to get to this business. I
cannot tell you how important it is that this road be upgraded, not necessarily
pavement, Mr. Speaker. Good Class A, good ditching and annual maintenance would
be the order of the day to make sure that anyone who is travelling over it is
not going to get stuck in the mud; is not going to tear the bottom out of their
car; tear the muffler off their car; destroy their tires. These are the sorts of
things that have happened, Mr. Speaker. This lady, who is trying to run a
business in rural Newfoundland, finds that she cannot get a steady flow of
traffic over that road, a steady flow of customers because the road is in such a
deplorable state.
Again, the minister has been advised of this and he too has a copy of this
petition. He has indicated that although he cannot make a commitment to it, he
will make a commitment to look at it. I certainly implore him to take a good
look at it and ensure that some commitment is made to take care of the problem
on the gravel portion of the roads and also the entire system to make sure that
it is fit for the travelling public.
With those words, Mr. Speaker, I certainly implore the minister to act upon
this petition and certainly thank the people of Georgetown for bringing it to my
attention and in turn, bringing it to the attention of this House.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we ask Your Honour to proceed to Motion 1,
continuation of yesterday's debate, the motion: That This House Approves in
General the Budgetary Policy of the Government.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was half afraid he was going to call another motion here today, and he
might have called something else.
I would like to start today where I finished yesterday. They say a good place
to start is at the beginning, but I would like to start at the end because I
made statements in this House yesterday which are recorded in Hansard, and which
are entirely accurate, and the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education stood and tried to twist them. My statements are here on the public
record of what I said, and I told her when I got again that I said it, and still
she went to the Open Lines this morning trying to give a different impression of
what I said.
For the record, I say to the minister, on page 325 of Hansard, I stood in my
place and I said, "The Province of Quebec; all Quebeckers pay the same
standard tuition in all universities over a year, $1,668 per year. Here at
Memorial University it was..." $3000. There is a little typo here. They put
down $300, but I guess that is just a little zero left off. I said it dropped
then to around $2,700. It is all here in the record.
The minister jumps up and says we are the lowest in the country. In fact, she
did a news release. The minister did a news release saying we have the lowest in
the country. Well, that really puzzles me, Madam Speaker. It really puzzles me.
When I looked at statistics produced by the Canadian Federation of Students, and
looked at statistics issued through Stats Canada up to 2000-2003, I am aware of
what we pay in other universities. I happen to have kids attending Memorial
University and a university also - two at Memorial University and one outside
this Province, in Nova Scotia. I am fairly familiar, with relatives attending
numerous universities. My colleague, the critic of Youth Services and
Post-Secondary Education has supplied me with some good statistics, too, on what
they are, and they are there for all to see.
I want to state again, unequivocally, that universities in Quebec have an
average - not an average. I should say that every single university in Quebec -
in fact, I will name them, Madam Speaker. I will name some of the universities
in Quebec.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Concordia University has a tuition of $1,668; Universit
Laval, tuition for a year of $1,668; McGill University, $1,668; cole des
Hautes Etudes Commerciales, Montral, $1,668; cole Polytechnique Montral
has $1,668.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. We are all familiar with that university
because every year you stand in this House and have a statement there where
engineering students, females, were killed, basically shot right there on the
campus of that university, and every year we wear a ribbon appropriate as a
statement usually in this House in memory of that.
cole Nationale d'Administration Publique, $1,668. There is a whole host
of these here. Universit du Qubec Abitibi-Temiscaminque, $1,668;
Universit du Qubec Chicoutimi, $1,668; Universit du Qubec
Montral, the same amount, $1,668; and at Rimouski it is the same. We can go
all the way through every university. At Sherbrooke, at Trois-Rivires -
$1,668.
In fact, in fifteen of the last twenty years there has been a freeze on
university tuition in the Province of Quebec. Do you know what they pay at the
colleges in Quebec? Do you know what the tuition is at all the colleges in
Quebec? Zero, no tuition for Quebecers at the colleges in Quebec - and $1,668
they pay in tuition.
Does our Province pay less than $1,668? The minister tried to skew it and
twist it and say with international students and other students, but factoring
in this weighted average, and taking the per cent of foreign students at Quebec,
the average comes to - including those in Quebec - $1,851. That is what it comes
to in Quebec. The minister knows that quite well -
MS THISTLE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and
Post-Secondary Education.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I have to say I really enjoyed our dialogue yesterday afternoon with the
member opposite, the Member for Ferryland. Madam Speaker, he is trying to put
out another misstatement today; because what you have to take into account, and
for the members opposite, we are not comparing apples to apples.
MR. SULLIVAN: I am.
MS THISTLE: Listen, if you would give me the respect I just gave you, I
will explain.
In Quebec, as I stated yesterday, Madam Speaker -
MADAM SPEAKER: Would the minister get to the point?
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
In Quebec, as I stated yesterday, there are two layers of tuition. One is for
Quebecers, residents of Quebec. Any other Canadian studying in Quebec has almost
double that tuition rate. What we have in Newfoundland and Labrador at Memorial
University is one tuition rate, and that covers all Canadians, all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and landed immigrants. So we are, in fact, the
lowest tuition rate. We have the lowest tuition rate in Canada, and that is
factual.
MADAM SPEAKER: I ask the minister to get to the point.
MS THISTLE: I would remind the member opposite, Madam Speaker, that his
leader, at the end of our Budget day last Thursday, stood outside and told the
media this is a great Budget. Today, the Member for Ferryland is disputing what
was in this -
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Points of order raised in the House are not opportunities for Ministers of
the Crown to interrupt a member's time to make large speeches or speeches
related to the Budget. The minister will have her opportunity, like everyone
else. If the minister takes exception to a point, or if it is related to a point
of order - a statement that she says is not fact - deal with it, but it is not
an opportunity for a Minister of the Crown to stand up for five minutes to give
a speech.
MADAM SPEAKER: The point is taken.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I want to correct the minister on one more thing she just said. She said in
Quebec they pay almost twice as much for international, for students outside
Quebec. I want to tell the minister what they pay, because I have the figure.
She does not even know that figure. That figure is $4,171, which is more than
twice; in fact, it is two-and-a-half times as much. Quebecers are looking after
Quebecers. Newfoundlander and Labrador should be looking after Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians. That is what they should be doing. That is what she did.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: And do not stand up in this House and throw out things that
are not true. If you can stand and put the facts on the table of what they are,
do it.
It says here, this comes from Stats Canada, the recent - we are up to
2002-2003 - if you have any figures different - in fact, I will go through it
and cite numerous instances here and if you want to refute information gathered
by Stats Canada, if she wants to do that - if the hon. member - will the
minister -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the hon. member.
MR. SULLIVAN: You are allowed to say that in the House. Mr. Speaker, I
did not say will you, which is proper, I said will she; and that is correct.
That is the parliamentary procedure I am following in this House. The Government
House Leader should know differently. He should know better. He should know
better because he rises when people do not follow it and I am following it
exactly to the letter. He is only trying to interrupt again.
I will put the facts here as they are taken from the costs at Memorial
University registration and I will give them for other universities across this
country. If you want to sit here and listen, or if you want to stand up and
refute them, show information that contradicts them; and tell me your source, I
say to the minister.
It says here: user fees have undergone significant reviews in recent years.
Following two years of frozen fees Grenfell College and Memorial University were
granted - it goes on to say - a 10 per cent reduction in fees; and we know that.
Then we had another 10 per cent, and of course now we are being told this year
we are going to have a 5 per cent reduction. That is factual and that is good.
We are not complaining about that. We are complaining about the minister giving
the wrong information to the public. That is what we do not like. We do not like
telling the people of this Province we are the lowest in the country when we do
not come close by a long shot. That is what we take offence with, trying to give
the impression we are ahead of the rest of the country in that.
This same
article states -
PREMIER GRIMES: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Madam Speaker, again, to make the point, the Opposition
desperately wants to give some impression to students in Newfoundland and
Labrador that they might be able to go someplace else in Canada, go to
university and be charged less tuition than at Memorial University. If he would
admit that even his own research - because you do not get charged, nobody gets
charged an average tuition in Quebec. There is no such thing as an average
tuition charge to any student. There is a tuition charge to a Quebec resident,
which you are or you are not. There is another tuition charge to other
Canadians, which would be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. There is another
tuition charge to people who are not Canadian, who are from other countries,
international students. You get charged one of three numbers, Madam Speaker, you
do not get charged an average. He should stand up and admit that the fact is,
for a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador, the lowest tuition that a
Newfoundland and Labrador student gets charged anywhere in this country is at
Memorial University, bar none.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am delighted the Premier got up and dug the hole deeper. I said - and it is
in Hansard yesterday. I said today, and he sat there and did not even hear me,
did not listen. Now he runs. He is running now when I get back and tell the
truth of what I just said. I said in this House, four minutes ago -
PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible) what averages you want now. You cannot find
another tuition (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Look at the Premier, shouting and waving his fists!
Shouting and waving his hand at me as he is running away. Come back in here and
fight, I say to the Premier. Come back in here, stay on the debate here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: It is unparliamentary to say a coward in this House and I
will not say it. It is unparliamentary. I wouldn't even want to imply it.
Three to four minutes before the Premier stood in his place I said in this
House, right here, that a person from outside of Quebec, who goes to a
university in Quebec, pays $4,131. I think that was the figure I used. I will
make sure it is exact. I said they pay $4,131 per student from outside Quebec,
going to a university in Quebec. That is what I said. That is not twisting the
truth. That is what I said.
A Newfoundlander and Labradorian going to a university in Newfoundland and
Labrador pays approximately $2,700, and there is a decrease coming. A Quebecer
who goes - and I said yesterday in this House - the minister got up and couldn't
even understand what I said. I said: In the Province of Quebec all Quebecers pay
the same standard tuition in all universities over a year, that is in the
Province of Quebec, if you are a Quebecer, $1,668.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: They can speak all they like, Madam Speaker, and I will ask
protection from these continuous interruptions.
MS THISTLE: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister made a fool of herself on this issue, and she
is trying to come back now and twist facts here. She does not have a fact to put
on the table.
MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Youth
Services and Post-Secondary Education.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The Member for Ferryland has this so twisted he does not know what he is
saying anymore.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Madam Speaker, what has been reported in the Budget, what I
have said right here in this House yesterday, and today on the Open Line media
is correct. In fact, I would ask the Member for Ferryland: What would a
Newfoundlander and Labradorian pay for tuition in Quebec?
Do you know what a Newfoundlander and Labradorian would pay in Quebec?
Thirty-nine hundred and sixty-four dollars, almost double. So I am telling you
that we do have the lowest tuition across the country. There is no layering.
There is one fee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This minister released a statement on the day of the Budget, and the Minister
of Finance in this House on the day of the Budget stood in her place and said:
Memorial University of Newfoundland has the lowest tuition in this country. The
tuition in Newfoundland and Labrador for Newfoundlanders is over $1,000
difference than tuition in Quebec for Quebecers. That is the difference,
Minister, and you can twist what you like. I said - actually I found the figure.
I said several minutes ago - you stood and said $3,900 - that the average
undergraduate tuition in Quebec for people who are from other provinces; before
the Premier stood up. Not the average.
Any other province of Canada that sends a student to Quebec university, from
outside Quebec, whether they are from Newfoundland and Labrador or British
Columbia, Alberta or Ontario, because in other universities, there are numerous
universities in Quebec, they pay $4,171. If a Quebecer goes to a university in
Quebec - that the big majority of people going to university in Quebec, the vast
majority from statistics are Quebecers, they pay $1,668. Here we are paying
roughly - it used to be $3,000, it is down around the ballpark of $2,700 or
$2,600, roughly. It is all based on a full course load. That is what they are
all standardized on. If the minister does not know that, they are standardized
across tuitions on full complements.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister wants me to explain the point?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: I will explain the point. The statement that the minister
gave, the Member for Grand Falls- Buchans, the Minister of Youth Services and
Post-Secondary Education, and the Member for St. John's Centre, the Minister
of Finance and Treasury Board, both of them made a statement, and it is here in
black, that Memorial University of Newfoundland has the lowest tuition in the
country, and that is wrong. That is wrong. It is not the lowest. The point is,
Madam Speaker, I would just like them to tell the truth. That is all we ask.
Could they tell the truth?
Madam Speaker, maybe they do not like the truth. Maybe the reason they are
getting so upset is because they do not like the truth. Maybe they have not been
dealing with it very often, and they do not like the truth. That could be the
reason why.
I am going to go on and I am going to mention other aspects that you should
know about tuition in Canada, and that the Minister of Youth Services and
Post-Secondary Education should find out about.
MR. LUSH: Are you telling Newfoundlanders now to go to Quebec?
MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is cheaper to stay here than to go to Quebec! The
minister does not understand it. I thought I made that clear. The Government
House Leader, the Member for Terra Nova, does not understand it. The minister
does not understand it. No wonder we have problems with our education system in
this Province; the minister cannot even understand it. Cannot even understand
their own press release. Do not even put facts on their own press release.
I am going to continue. I am going to say a few facts here on education,
Madam Speaker. They can shout and they can interrupt all they like, but I am
going to continue. I am going to make reference here, where it said: despite
soaring student debt levels, government's strategy for reducing debt is deeply
flawed. That is what this statement says, it is deeply flawed. It says; Canada
remains one of two nations in the world without a national system of needs-based
grants. It saddles its students with some of the highest fees. The loans-based
approach to student financial assistance has proved to be a failure at
guaranteeing access. It said, research clearly demonstrates that the cost of
post-secondary education and increased debt levels are significant factors in
decisions that students make about whether or not they are going to continue
their studies above high school. Even more significant is the finding that
students from lower income households are more likely to be affected by
financial issues when deciding to pursue or not pursue education beyond the high
school level.
I see another big difference here in our Province. The average over a two
term to go to university, to come in from rural Newfoundland, it normally costs
in excess of $10,000 a semester for someone to leave rural Newfoundland, come in
here, pay for their apartment, their lights and heat, and of course live away
from home, and there are other costs of getting back and forth. You are looking
at in the vicinity of over $10,000 a semester. Tuition used to be about 30 per
cent of that $10,000, when it was $3,000. Granted, tuition has dropped and that
is beneficial. We support that; I am delighted to see that. That is not the
point we are making here. We are all for more access. Still, you have to keep in
mind that a student now living at home in St. John's could attend university
for two semesters for about $2,600 or $2,700. With the $500 down, for a student
from rural Newfoundland coming in and having to set up house and all other
costs, still $500 less than $10,000 is about $9,500. It is now costing
significantly more, about three-and-a-half times as much money, for a rural
Newfoundland person to get an education here in our Province as a person from
the urban area of our Province. I think we need to look at addressing those
needs.
I know one particular person now who has $70,000 in student loans, got one
degree, couldn't get a job and had to go back another year to go on to get the
next degree. It is in an area that is in fairly high demand, at least in North
America, and hopefully here. They had to apply and it went beyond the time. In
fact, I wrote a letter of support indicating that I felt the student is in a
career that has a high opportunity of getting work, and research of this issue
has shown all that. That is a family whose parents couldn't afford to
contribute, for example, to their education and that person now has a greater
opportunity to repay that debt by getting that extra year or two in than they
are having to leave there without that job. So, those are the types of decisions
we need.
Why is the burden so high in the first place? It is because we are really
disadvantaged in rural Newfoundland today, to try to get a university education.
The cost of tuition is only a small part of the cost. It is the minority of the
cost of getting an education there. We all know, most of us on both sides of
this House, I am sure, are familiar with it, through friends or with their
children having to come and attend university here, it is not cheap anywhere to
attend university, basically, when you have to move away from home, because your
living costs and your transportation costs are very high. We have people in
debt, to a great extent, I might add, by those burdens. Can you imagine? What
happens now?
I will raise one of the big concerns. If a person comes from a low income
household and they cannot access the full student loan, what do they do? They
either don't go to school or they try to work part-time to get a job and take
a lot longer to go to school. They have to spend a lot of their time worrying
where the next meal is going to come from. People at university do that. People
in the middle income bracket -
MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I wish the Minister of Labour, the Member for Bellevue,
would stop shouting out over there. He is continually at it, interrupting. It is
only going to take me longer to make my points if I get all these interruptions.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: It is going to take longer than that, I say, if I keep
getting interrupted. It might take longer. Infinity plus, I might say, it might
take me. A math teacher knows a little bit about infinity.
What happens to middle income families with kids in school? Their parents are
expected to contribute to many of the kids' education. I know parents who have
put a mortgage back on their house so they can access the money for their kids
to get an education. They were required to contribute to it. Anything that would
reduce that is a tremendous benefit. We want to see opportunities for growth and
development in our Province. We want to see an opportunity for people to be
employed in our Province. We want -
MS THISTLE: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, on a
point of order.
MS THISTLE: Madam Speaker, I won't misuse this time at all. I just want
to take a moment to enlighten the Member for Ferryland that the Canadian
Federation of Students agree that our tuition rates are the lowest in the
country. They agree that we have the best student loan package in the country. I
will tell you that we had revamped the whole student loan package last summer.
It is possible now, Madam Speaker, for a student to have all the Newfoundland
and Labrador portion of their student loan erased, providing they meet the
criteria. That is only one, and I will be up later this afternoon to talk about
others.
Thank you.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I would appreciate if the Government House Leader would take the Minister of
Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education aside and explain how the House of
Assembly works here; because, if not, I will point it out if you want.
Ministers have a privilege, Madam Speaker, to stand in this House and give a
Ministerial Statement, a privilege that I, as a common member, do not have, to
articulate the programs and statements of her department, not on a point of
order. She has the right to be able to stand as a minister on any particular day
with a statement in this House, and no limit on her time, to stand and read from
a statement that articulates policies of students in Newfoundland and Labrador.
She happened to articulate a policy and did a news release and a backup to the
Budget supplement that made a statement that was false. I have a right to stand,
in my time as the critic for Finance, and respond to this Budget. The minister
had unlimited time in presenting the Budget, and I have unlimited time in
responding to that Budget.
Four times she abused the rules of this House by not knowing how it works, or
deliberately interfering with it. One or the other, I am not sure which one. If
she does not know the rules of the House, I will accept it, but now she knows
the rules of the House and I would expect them to be followed. If she is trying
to make a statement, there is an appropriate time in the next day this House
sits. The minister can stand and she can talk for forty-five minutes or two
hours if she wants to, and articulate the policies of that department.
I am familiar with loan remission programs and debt reduction. I have gone
with people to appeals recently on some of them, and I have dealt with many
people, like many other members here in this House do. It is a part of the
routine day. I deal with them continuously, I tell the minister. I have five
appeals this week alone on different matters dealing with either students - not
necessarily this week with student appeals, which I do not, by the way, but I
have in the past. I continuously spend time and I am familiar with the programs.
We do about 200 of them a year, appeals with numerous different types of
aspects. I appear in person. I have a little knowledge. I am not an expert on
them all, but I read and try to find out about them all, research and find out
the rules that apply. When I stand here in this House, or sit here, and read
statements that I find are erroneous, they are leaving the wrong impression out
in the public, I am going to do what I can to stand in this House and clarify
those particular points.
I am going to continue. I am still on the education issue. I must be half an
hour now and have not even moved away from that yet, because of four points of
order, trying to deal with them.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not points of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: Proposed points of order.
I will read another statement from this document I have here. It says: For
the sixth consecutive year tuition fees will be frozen at Quebec universities
for residents of Quebec. I have said this before. Quebec residents attending
university in that Province will pay, it says, an average of $675, the lowest
tuition in Canada, and the official list lists $668. For residents of other
provinces attending universities in Quebec, the average undergraduate tuition
fees, depending on which university you attend, is $4,171. I made that statement
before the Premier jumped up on his point of order and tried to say I did not.
That is there. Read Hansard. I ask anybody to go in on the Web. Read it
tomorrow. Go in and read it. It will be in written form tomorrow. It is there.
It is factual, what I stated, and I stand by it. What they are trying to throw
out is a smokescreen to cover up an incorrect statement that was made by two
Ministers of this Crown to create a different impression for people in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Of course, for people in Newfoundland and Labrador to go to other provinces
to get an education is more costly. Of course it is. To leave here and go to
Quebec, to leave here and go to Ontario, you have to fly out. You have extra
costs. I am familiar with it. One of my three children attends university
outside the Province. There are two attending here at Memorial and I know very
much what the costs are, and so do any member of this House. This information is
available. Most people in this House, I am sure, attended some form of
post-secondary and they know a little bit about the costs and comparisons and
what is happening here.
Madam Speaker, the same basic thing it mentions here, it even goes into
mentioning some of the other special programs here like dentistry, medicine and
law. They say the most expensive programs at universities in Canada, measured by
average tuition, continue to be dentistry, medicine and law. Students in
dentistry will pay $8,997 on average this year, more than double the average,
for instance, of $3,605 that art students pay. Law and medicine students had to
face the largest fee increases last year. Law students will pay $5,019 on
average. That is up 14.17 per cent, and medicine will pay $8,062 on average, up
8.1 per cent from the previous year.
I also have information here that shows not only are tuition fees not the
lowest in the country, this
article also says, from Stats Canada - I am quoting
my source, and if anybody has other more current information, more current to
this, I would be delighted to have it. This is up to 2002-2003 and I think we
are there now, in that neighbourhood. If there are drastic changes since this
publication, that was, I think, downloaded on March 29. That was only three days
ago, actually. If there is anything other, not up to date, I certainly would
like to know it, but it states here that when you look at all the other
provinces in Canada, in addition to tuition, other mandatory costs, they call
them, they say there are other fees that are mandatory. For example, it says,
average additional compulsory fees, fees that you have to pay on top of tuition,
and what it says on this document - three days ago it was still on the Net - up
to the end of March this year, it states that Newfoundland and Labrador has the
highest additional compulsory fees of any province in this country. That is on
top of their tuition. That is what it said. It says, New Brunswick has the
lowest. That is $272 per year, and Newfoundland and Labrador is $732. Canada, on
the average, in $538. Newfoundland and Labrador is the highest at $732, followed
by Ontario with $653, followed by Manitoba with $646, followed by, next overall,
$513 in Alberta. Then we are looking at Saskatchewan, $492; we have $448, Prince
Edward Island; we have Nova Scotia, $429; Quebec is $440.
On top of these statistics here of Quebec showing over $1,000 cheaper than
Newfoundland in tuition, these statistics also say that a Quebecer going to
Quebec as opposed to a Newfoundlander attending Newfoundland university here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, would pay an extra $300 more in Newfoundland and
Labrador in additional compulsory fees. Madam Speaker, that would be about
$1,300 more for a Newfoundlander and Labradorian to go to school.
MS THISTLE: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
MR. SULLIVAN: For the fifth time, it's abuse.
MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Youth Services and
Post-Secondary Education.
MS THISTLE: Madam Speaker, I just cannot sit here and listen to those
false statements that the Member for Ferryland is making.
I am sure he was tuned into his radio after I spoke this morning on Open
Line. He knows full-well that is incorrect. There are no additional compulsory
fees at MUN for $732. They actually total $366, and those fees come from the
Federation of Students, Memorial University Student Union, and others. The only
fees that are involved are for health and dental plans. Also, $40 goes to the
university for operational use of the recreational complex, Field House.
Can you imagine that he is trying to mislead this House by saying all this
incorrect information? This was corrected by Memorial University, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Memorial University corrected this at Stats Canada and
Memorial University also corrected the media; and that has been done.
Thank you.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I appealed to the Speaker of this House on five occasions, minister, and the
Premier (inaudible) this House on one occasion since I started speaking who is
violating the rules. They are making ministerial statements - she has the right
to do it. I said - and prefaced this by saying at the beginning. I have a
document here, I indicated, from Stats Canada. I said this document here list
these figures. I said if anybody has figures they can table which refute these,
I will accept them. They were downloaded on March 29, three days ago. If this
minister could give me a sheet refuting these figures and the sources, and I
check them, then I would believe it; but, the minister has not done that. She
jumps up, contrary to the rules of democracy in this House, trying to take this
House on her back, Madam Speaker. I think something should be done about someone
who is trying to take this House on their back and run it on their own with six
or seven ministerial statements here today.
I want to add something very important that the minister should know. The
years when the biggest tuition drop occurred, what happened? The last two years
when we had a 10 per cent drop in tuition each year fees jumped. The fees here
in this Province jumped from $120 in 1993-1994 - it went to $200. In 1997-1998
it was $200. Just four years ago it was $200, those exact fees in our Province.
In 2001-2002 they jumped to $724, and now $730. They dropped tuition by a few
hundred but the compulsory fees went up even more. That is what happened. Giving
on one hand and take back more on the other hand. That is the smoke and mirrors
game that this government is playing here.
You talk about the Field House. Sure. I am not disputing the merits of it. I
am saying a student has to pay it. A student has to pay, I think, $40 a
semester. Eighty dollars a year, whether they use it or whether they do not.
That is a compulsory fee they have to pay. I would assume student union fees are
compulsory. If you do not have a medical plan or opt out - I would assume they
are compulsory. I said yesterday I am not sure what is in the compulsory fees. I
would think it is medical fees or dental, if you do not opt out. I would assume
it is union fees. I would assume Field House. I would assume those costs are in
there. I am not saying what they are. I am just asking the minister - if she
could table figures that refute these you can go back to the source and say you
got the wrong information because these fees went up drastically when tuition
went down. They are not giving us the true picture of what is happening.
This minister, over there, is trying to defend an indefensible statement and
make a statement that is saying we are the lowest in the country when she knows
fully well that a Quebecer can go to university in Quebec for $1,668 in tuition
and an average of $400 in other fees. Here in our Province it is $2,600, plus -
if you follow this accurate report - another $732 on top of that there. There is
a big difference. It is cheaper for a Quebecer to go to university in Quebec -
significantly more, over $1,300 by these accounts - than a Newfoundlander and
Labradorian to go to university here in this Province.
In this Province - there are many universities in Quebec - usually the
geography to go here and the cost from rural Newfoundland are fairly expensive
because there are not a huge number of locations, obviously, that you can go. So
that is a cost built into the system too. I think we should acknowledge that.
The minister should not be up trying to twist a statement that she made.
Let's look at some of the university costs, in case the minister wants to
comment on these later on when she gets up to speak on the Budget. We hope she
will get up and speak on this Budget when her time is called. I hope she will
give me the opportunity for a member's statement as she has made five or six
minister's statements during my comments.
The University of Prince Edward Island, academic fees - I cannot even read
all the incidental fees because they are sort of blotted out here, but I will
stick with the academic fee - about $3,870. Acadia, for example, it says $6,584.
Dalhousie from $4,800 to $5,600 range. Mount Saint Vincent, $4,575. They do
mention here in the overall reading - I will not go into that - that Nova Scotia's
fees are fairly high to attend universities in Nova Scotia. Saint Mary's,
$4,685; St. Francis Xavier University, $4,940; Universit Sainte-Anne, $4,738;
University of the College of Cape Breton, $4,507; University of King's College
between $4,865 and $6,175.
I will use Western Ontario as an example, $4,065; Wilfrid Laurier, $4,106;
University of Windsor, $4,000; York University, $4,106. Here is another low one,
Brandon University, $2,730. In hours prior to this change, in our university
here in our Province, it shows the figure of about the same basically. It shows
$2,670 compared to $2,700 in Brandon. So Brandon is another particular one which
is showing that it is down and their compulsory fees are much cheaper. So
Brandon is cheaper too, in addition to all the universities in Quebec.
If you wanted to look at colleges, they do not pay any tuition. Quebecers do
not pay any tuition in colleges in Quebec but people going to the College of the
North Atlantic and other institutes do pay a fee here in our Province. So, lets
compare apples and apples, I say to the minister, because I am comparing apples
and apples in this particular case.
If you look at Saskatchewan, most universities in Saskatchewan are down about
the mid-threes in tuition. Their fees are all showing as being in the ballpark,
but at the lower end of it, a bit less than our Province with compulsory fees.
Alberta, slightly higher. At St. Thomas University, it is showing $3,520. Of
course, all of Quebec - one thing in common, among all these universities in
Quebec is a common theme that they are all $1,668 that is listed here for the
universities in Quebec. In Ontario, for example, a lot of universities in
Ontario - St. Paul University is $3,116; the Royal Military College of Canada,
$1,524.
The University of Victoria, British Columbia, $2,796. Okanagan University
College is cheaper than Memorial University, $2,340. The $2,340 at the Okanagan,
all these include fees and tuition of $2,340. I cannot figure out - the
University of British Columbia shows cheaper here than our Province; and every
single university in Quebec for Quebecers is cheaper. That is totally the second
largest province of this country with a population in the vicinity of 6 million
to 7 million people. It has -
AN HON. MEMBER: That is great news for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
MR. SULLIVAN: It is great news for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when
the minister stands and tells us we are the lowest and we are not. That is great
news for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I say to the Government House Leader
who is shouting out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Speaker, those people on that side of the House are
very, very irritated, I think, today. They are very testy today because they
cannot stand the truth. They cannot stand the truth, I say.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: They are having a problem to deal with it.
I can tell them they are going to have to deal with a lot more of it, a lot
more of the truth, I can tell you, because I intend to address every single
critic area of the budget here, if I can.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I might get through it, who knows, by this afternoon
without interruptions. If I keep getting interruptions who knows when I will
finish. Without interruptions, I might add, I may finish up today, but they keep
interrupting.
I want to get back to -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there is something, I might add, going to rupture in
the next election, I think. Yes, sir. The ballot boxes will be stuffed so much
with ballots supporting the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, they will not
be able to fit them into the ballot boxes, I say, in the next election.
MS THISTLE: We've got you frazzled.
MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education
hasn't stood up in four or five minutes. I think she must really be feeling
she has run out of points of order.
I want to just comment on an
article here. There is an
article here on
provincial analysis. Achieving Excellence, it is called. It goes on to mention
that Newfoundland and Labrador's per capita income and labour productivity in
2000 was below the Canadian average but was, we will say, on par with other
Atlantic Provinces.
It goes on to mention - and this is interesting here in our Province because
if we are going to achieve excellence, if we are going to invest in people,
knowledge and opportunity in our Province, we need to invest in people. We need
to make an investment in people, in new technology, in skills. Total research
and development spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product in our
Province was below the national average in 1999, with most of the input in R
& D from universities and the federal government. Very little driven by the
Province here, or by private industry here in our Province. In fact, it says,
Newfoundland enjoyed one of the most educated labour forces in the country in
2000. As a result of substantial interprovincial migration to other provinces -
you know, we have produced a very well educated and a good workforce here in our
Province, but one of the biggest problems dealing with it, and it is cited here
in this particular article, too, is that we are not retaining them here to
invest and grow the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are seeing
immigration. Immigration is occurring, to other provinces across the country,
and they are also going to other countries, but in particular out of our
Province. We have seen a tremendous brain drain, you call it, and that is not
healthy for our Province. We have seen that drop now - our Province has gone
down to 1.7 per cent of the Canadian population, Madam Speaker. At one point we
were, just back in the early 1990s, about 2 per cent of the Canadian population
and we have dropped significantly. That is a major drop, from 2 per cent to 1.7
per cent, because that impacts on a lot of areas of programs and services that
we obtain.
We had pre-Budget consultation sessions. There is reference made here that
construction companies have been turning down work due to lack of labourers.
There are few new entrants into many occupations. It has been argued that labour
market and career information is to students and job seekers what market
research is to business, invaluable.
We have numerous -
MR. E. BYRNE: There was a pre-Budget submission to the Minister of
Finance.
MR. SULLIVAN: There was a pre-Budget submission done by the Capital Coast
Development Alliance and, in fact, I have a copy. I am sure probably all members
got a copy. I remember getting it and going through it, and there are some very
interesting points. You do not run government day to day. Most of the success
achieved by running government comes through long-term strategic planning, and
you have to look at getting an educated workforce; but there is no point in
getting an educated workforce and spending millions and millions of dollars to
do it if you see them all go out to other provinces, bring their skills and
talents there, and cannot be used for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
It says here, an interesting statistic, Madam Speaker, that Newfoundland and
Labrador is the least manufacturing intensive province in Canada. The
manufacturing sector in this Province accounts for less than 7 per cent. Less
than 7 per cent of the GDP in the year 2000 came from the manufacturing sector.
The manufacturing sector creates jobs, produces a good or a service, and that is
important. That is important because we need to grow as a Province. We need to
invest more into that basic level at the manufacturing, at the primary producing
level here in our Province.
We have seen that Newfoundland and Labrador's per capita measure of
standard of living was $26,210 in 2000. That is 24 per cent lower than the
Canadian average.
Labour productivity is a major determinant of a standard of living. Labour
productivity in Newfoundland and Labrador was about 13 per cent, Madam Speaker,
lower than the national average in 2000. Relative productivity levels in most
industries were lower in Newfoundland and Labrador than the Canadian average.
However, our primary sector was the second most productive and that is, in
particular here, when you look at the primary sector in the Province, after
Alberta, it ranks second, and productivity in the utility sector outperformed
the Canadian average in this specific area.
It is important. We cannot underestimate the value of research and
development because research and development, we need to get a bigger chunk of
the pie. Most research and development, as I looked at earlier, filters in
through government agencies, particular through the universities involved in
that, and any announcement to bring new monies into our Province in research and
development will pay long-term dividends.
I was looking, I think, at the America's Cup. The Swiss had their yacht. It
was tested here in our Province, to know that here in our Province we are
involved in the design. We are involved in design and testing, which is so
vital, because we have a lot of expertise here in our Province and many people I
know with high skills in areas have left here. They have managed to get
short-term work but not sustainable. They have gone to other parts of the
country, and to the United States in many cases, and other parts of the world,
to bring their skills to those specific areas. It is important that we keep an
educated workforce here in our Province.
Fifty-three per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador's small- and medium-sized
enterprises, it said, used the Internet in 2000, over 15 per cent below the
national average, but I do feel that we are hopefully getting there. Encourage
using the Internet. Even in the Budget there was reference to $5 million, I
think, under Broadband. That is positive for rural Newfoundland and Labrador,
and we need to get that out there. We need high-speed Internet connections. We
need to bring businesses to our fingertips, access to markets, access to
research and access to information, because we are in a high information
technology economy here and there are tremendous jobs to be reaped there.
Data that is available shows that people who participate in the Canadian
workforce in job-related training is below the levels in most industrialized
countries. That sends a signal. Twenty-one per cent of the Canadian adult
population participated in job-related training, and the participation rate here
in our Province was 15 per cent. It is important.
Today, it is a lot different than twenty and thirty years ago. When you went
to a job twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years ago, you probably carried it out
and did that same job maybe for life. Today, people have to be trained,
continuous training. Even if you are an automobile mechanic, there are new
updates, new equipment; you are updating and training. It is going on in
business today. There are seminars and workshops for people who are in the
education field. There are training seminars, whether you are an automobile
mechanic or whatever you are doing. There is continuous upgrading to be able to
compete better in a competitive market and better serve the customer. You have
to know the product. You have to know how to service that product and also you
have to know how to sell that particular product. So they are all very, very
important.
We have had a tremendous amount of immigration from our Province. The slide
is still continuing. We certainly hope that it will stop, because we cannot
afford to have a continuous erosion of people out of our Province.
You know, people talk about - and it is all under education. I want to make
another reference to something in this Budget, two other things mentioned in
this Budget. It is cute how people try to word it. You know, if they said: Is
the bottle half full or is it half empty? Well, when we look at our Province
today, government said here in this Budget document that we are putting - and I
say that our Education critic is fully aware. It is saying in this document that
there are 218 teachers we are putting into the system in Newfoundland and
Labrador next year.
What they do not tell you, what they hide on side two, on the reverse of a
news release, they look over on a news release, and look on the reverse side of
that - and I have it here, right over on the back, hidden in a news release, on
the reverse side of the document that was passed to the media - it states: Had
government allowed the teacher allocation model - the Sparkes-Williams report -
we would have taken 378 teachers out of the system.
In other words, they are telling us, we put 218 teachers in the system, left
them in the system. What they did, they took 160 teachers out of the system. So
that is the way you word it. They said: Three hundred and seventy-eight would
have gone because of declining enrolments, so we will give you 218 teachers.
Basically, you removed 160 teachers even though the students came out,
because obviously if you have a class of twenty-four and you have one teacher,
and that class goes up to twenty-five, every class in the Province all went up
by one, obviously the same teacher can teach it; or it goes up by two, the same
teacher probably, when it gets to twenty-seven. What happens if you took one
student out of every class for two years in a roll? Then it goes down, so we are
not going to take it out. You did not put it in when it went up. Because there
is a certain base you need to operate our system. You have to have certain
programs. You have to have a certain basic number of employees, and as you add
programs you get economies in numbers as they go up. You should apply them in
reverse as the numbers go down. That is what should be applied, not to go out
and spread it and say: Look, we will give you 280 new teachers. There are 160
less teachers.
The board in the district I represent, I think, are getting - what? -
thirty-eight less teachers.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thirty-six.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thirty-six less teachers. My colleague, the critic in
Education, the Member for St. John's East, says thirty-six less teachers under
the Avalon East Board in the district I represent. They have to look at what
they are going to do, what is going to happen. Are there going to be program
cuts? If a student comes out of each class, a student less in this class and
that class, what have you got to do? You cannot pull one teacher out of every
fifth class and say, this class will have no teacher. What do you have to do?
You have to either combine or you have to cut programs. The same thing should be
applied, as when we get economies on an upward swing and population, we should
apply particular savings back into the system.
We were told, and we all heard it here, a householder went out all over
Newfoundland and Labrador, that the savings would be reinvested in education.
Savings back into education! Is taking 160 teachers from what we had last year
reinvesting savings in education. No. It is syphoning out 160 times the average
going salary in that particular item in education. If you take 160 times
whatever the average salary is, we are looking at a significant amount of money
in the system. A significant amount of money is coming out of the system this
year. Several million dollars, basically, that is not going back in on the
teachers' salaries item alone.
The Premier, I think, made a commitment earlier, that we are going to put $9
million back into schools. I think it makes reference to secretarial,
janitorial, maintenance type services in the schools, because the schools have
been cutting corners. They are having to lay people off in the summer and you
are laid off over Christmas, and they are cutting back on the cleanliness within
the schools. You can only do so much work in a thirty-five or forty-hour week.
If you don't get it done, you go home, and that is why things are not getting
done, because they are cutting back on that.
There was a commitment to put back $9 million, I think was the figure. What
is in this Budget for it? What does it say, $9 million? No. Not $8 million, not
$7 million, not $6 million, not $5 million or even $4 or $3 million, Mr.
Speaker, but $2.5 million is referenced in this Budget as being put back. It was
put in when $9 million, I think, was promised by the Premier. That is not going
to cut it. It is $2.5 million better than last year. I know some of that is
going to be taken up with other costs, but still it is not what was promised. I
didn't see the exact words and script so I won't make it definitive that he
said it is going to be - if he gave time lines when he made that, I am not sure.
The impression I got - and, as I said, I could be wrong, but my understanding
was that he said we were going to get $9 million and we got $2.5 million.
Mr. Speaker, it is not good to make statements and then not follow up on
those statements. I would like to just touch on something that the minister made
reference to here in responding to questions here in the House, or the Premier
did. In fact, the minister stood in this House, back some time last May, and she
gave a Ministerial Statement. She stood and applauded, basically, and everybody
applauded, how they said our credit rating was increased by Moody's. In fact,
in that statement she went on to say that in announcing the upgrade today - this
is the statement she used - Moody's noted the Province's strong economic
growth, its improved fiscal position, and the resultant improvements in key debt
ratios such as debt to GDP. Moody's also pointed - she said also; she pointed
to things on the government that we have. She said, our strong economic growth,
our improved fiscal position, result in improvement in key debt ratios such as
debt to GDP. Then she went on to say, it also pointed to the level of fiscal
support provided by the federal government and the likelihood of a continuation
of this support in light of Canada's improving fiscal position and debt
burden. That is what she said - also pointed to some stability.
When the minister gave her statement, I just received it, and I am not sure
if I had it coming into the House at all, but I had someone go back and see if
we could get information. Within minutes after, I was successful in getting
information that said - and here is what Moody's said compared to what the
minister said. Here is the difference in spin that a Ministerial Statement - I
did not get the statement enough to be able to see it and react, time to respond
and find out the true information. It said here, the ratings announced today -
Moody's said - for Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island reflect primarily a
recognition that the federal government's improved fiscal position
acknowledged in last week's upgrade of federal debt ratings provides a more
stable environment for federal-provincial fiscal transfers. That is what they
credit with being the significant factor.
They went on to say within Canada the Atlantic Provinces are the most reliant
on federal transfers as a revenue source and they are more susceptible to
systemic re-entrenchment in such transfers. They went on to say, today,
Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island's ratings upgrade reflect in part our
assessment that the federal government's stronger position lessens the
likelihood of transfer reduction comparable in scope to those imposed in the
mid-1990s. It goes on to say, according to a report recently published by the
central government, federal cash transfers for the Province will average 6 per
cent between 2000-2001 and up to 2005-2006.
That is the reason they gave improved fiscal commitments in a longer term to
this Province, not the outstanding economy that the minister stood in this House
and tried to spread to the people of the Province. In fact, they went on with a
warning. They went on and said, our assessment of the provincial sector now
operates in a more stable system of federal support prompts the rating upgrade
to A3 for this Province. They said, while Newfoundland's credit rating remains
among the least robust of the Canadian provinces, it is important to recognize
the now reduced risk to its bond holders. That was not what the minister read
and said to people in that particular statement.
It goes on to issue a warning. It says, the Province now faces more difficult
budget circumstances and is relying to a great extent on non-recurring measures
to enhance its short-term fiscal flexibility. The use of such measures - this is
Moody's - in response to ongoing spending pressures posed by last year's
costly salary agreement is unsustainable and severely limits the potential for
further credit improvement.
In other words, they are indicating what we are doing here in this Province
is unsustainable. One rating said we have increased the rating, basically,
because we see stability in federal transfers and a commitment to 2005-2006.
That is what is indicated in that statement.
Other people voiced their opinions also. The Bank of Montreal said,
"...Newfoundland's population is likely to continue declining over the
longer term, due to a falling birth rate and net out-migration from the
province." They also went on to say: Despite the supercharged growth that
Newfoundland has had, the fiscal position has become more precarious.
In spite of all this growth, our fiscal position has precarious. In spite of
all this growth our fiscal position has become more precarious. What did the
Premier state? We are better able to pay our mortgage today than we could
yesterday. That is what he said, better able to pay our mortgage. Why is the
Bank of Montreal economist telling us, only last year, that despite the
supercharged growth we are having here the fiscal situation has become more
precarious. The Province has incurred increasingly larger debts in each of the
past three years and that pattern is expected to continue in this fiscal year
just ended, too.
It goes on then to make reference to different transfers and reasons why. I
will not go into detail, but I am going to just read from Kenrick Jordan, Senior
Economist, the Bank of Montreal, this statement. Mr. Speaker, this statement
says, "Clearly, Newfoundland's fiscal situation is a cause for concern
and could act as a drag on economic growth. With very high debt levels
(estimated at 54.2 % of GDP as of March 31, 2002, the highest by far of all
provinces) and the highest personal income taxes in the country, the province is
in a difficult situation. It cannot increase taxes to reduce the deficit and it
cannot reduce taxes to stimulate the economy."
It says it is in a very difficult position. That was last year, less than one
year ago, several months back, in May of last year, that the Bank of Montreal
made reference to what they feel we are in for here in the economy of our
Province.
Mr. Speaker, when you look at other areas that rate, and look at our economy,
just this past year, I did a release back just a few months ago, back in
October, and in that I pointed out that this government has dropped from fourth
place to eleventh place, dropped to last in the annual Fraser Institute audit of
provincial governments' fiscal performance. In fact, the Fraser Institute
measured the fiscal conduct of the provinces and the federal government based on
twenty performance measures in three general areas. They measured them in
spending, they measured them in tax rates, and they measured in revenue. They
measured spending, tax rates and revenue, and the other area was in debt and
deficit. That was the third category.
On the spending measure, we dropped from sixth place to eleventh place last
year. On the tax rates and revenue measures, we ranked seventh. On the debt and
deficit measures we had a