Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements — 26 November 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 37)
2001-11-26
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 26, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 37
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to Your Honour's
attention, a matter of what I consider to be the privileges of this House, and I
believe they are being somewhat impinged upon in this Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to start off by reading the definition
of what parliamentary privilege is, "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of
the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of
the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without
which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed
by other bodies or individuals."
Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, I think, were in the Chair some time ago when you
recognized that a member's privileges can be impinged upon when an action is
obstructing the member - in any way obstructing the member - from doing that
member's duties or from carrying them out in a manner that is above board.
You also, at that time, heard a submission that any action taken by any
member who has a tendency to obstruct or deny a member's ability, to obstruct
or deny any member from carrying out their duties, any action on the part of any
member of the Legislature who has the tendency to obstruct any member from
carrying out their duties, is a function of the privileges of that House.
Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, let me just say that I believe that
misquotes - in other words, making statements that are not true - whether they
are deliberate or otherwise, can lead to such obstruction.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say to you that I believe the same
privileges should apply to officers of the House, as well as individual members.
When another member rises in this House and misquotes or misinforms the House, I
believe, whether it is deliberate or not, it is fair to say that if they make
those statements about an officer of the House then they are breaking the
privileges of this House.
It has come to my attention that the Leader of the Opposition has made public
statements which represent a mis-characterization of the work and findings of
the Auditor General in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I do not need to point out to you, but I will for the record,
that the Auditor General is an officer of the House, under the Auditor General
Act,
section 4.(3), and should, I believe, be accorded the rights, privileges
and protection as provided by the Legislature.
On November 23, the Leader of the Opposition made the following public
statement - and this was in the public media. He says: and I keep referring to
the Auditor General's report because the Auditor General is very concerned
about the manner in which they - obviously referring to the government - are
managing the Province's finances.
I would emphasize the section: in which they are mismanaging, or managing,
the Province's finances.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, while in the House, has also cited
comments that he attributed to the Report of the Auditor General for the year
ended March 31, 2000, in the House of Assembly on November 20, November 21, and
November 23, 2001. I am going to give some excerpts, and I think they are
relevant from Hansard, on the corresponding sections from the Auditor General's
report, for your consideration.
On November 20, 2001, the Leader of the Opposition said, "Mr. Speaker,
the Auditor General for this Province has stated that she is extremely concerned
about the current state of the finances in our Province." You will find
that in Hansard on page 1640.
Mr. Speaker, here is what the Auditor General really did say: I am extremely
concerned with the current state of affairs - not, Mr. Speaker, with the current
state of finances in the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TULK: Oh, you can laugh.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: No, I am not.
Mr. Speaker, on November 20, 2001, the Leader of the Opposition said,
"Should the people of Newfoundland and Labrador trust these numbers when
the Auditor General of this Province clearly does not?"
Mr. Speaker, nowhere, nowhere in the Auditor General's report, does the
Auditor General say that she does not trust these numbers. The word trust is
nowhere to be found in her submission.
On November 20, 2001 the Leader of the Opposition says: "I happen to use
the exact words as the Auditor General used and I quoted her verbatim, directly
word by word.
On November 22, 2001, the Leader of the Opposition said, "Mr. Speaker,
the Auditor General, as I have stated before, is extremely concerned about the
current state of affairs of the finances in the Province." I emphasis
again, he is quoting the Auditor General as saying that she is concerned about
the current state of affairs of the finances in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, here again is what the Auditor General actually said: I am
concerned with the current state of affairs.
Mr. Speaker, does that say I am concerned about the current state of affairs
of the finances of the Province? Absolutely not. Here is what he was referring
to: the present initiatives for government departments, Crown agencies and
Memorial University are not legislated. With respect to the initiative for Crown
agencies and Memorial University, they are not mandatory in that they are at the
discretion of the minister responsible. None of the plans, information or
reports generated under these initiatives are required to be tabled in the House
of Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you take a very thorough review of the Auditor
General's report, it will be demonstrated that at no time in that report did
the Auditor General express that she is very concerned about the manner in which
the provincial government has managed the Province's finances. Nowhere in that
report will you find it.
The Leader of the Opposition, either deliberately or otherwise - I do not
want to suggest to him that it was deliberate - but his decision to use these
exact words while maintaining that he is quoting the Auditor General verbatim, I
think, is very significant. I say that to him in all seriousness.
I further submit that at no time did the Auditor General state, as reported
by the Leader of the Opposition in Hansard, November, 2001, that the Auditor
General has stated that she is extremely concerned about the current state of
finances in the Province, or extremely concerned about the current state of
affairs of the finances of the Province.
I also submit to you that she, at no point in time, in any way, brought up -
in any manner did she bring up - that she did not trust the numbers, as was
clearly indicated by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I can only say to you that I believe that these mis-characterizations
of the Auditor General's report, both inside and outside the House of
Assembly, and the attempts to pass them off as verbatim quotes, represents a
significant and a serious infringement and an impingement on the ability of the
Auditor General to perform her functions in a impartial manner.
The Leader of the Opposition has made concise claims and has attributed them
to an Officer of the House. It is my contention that the Auditor General never
made such statements, and the House of Assembly must seek to address the assault
upon or interference with the ability of the Auditor General to execute her
duties as set forth in the Auditor General's Act.
Furthermore, it is my contention that the Leader of the Opposition, by
attributing non-existing findings to the Auditor General, is presenting to the
House of Assembly a false statement that could, and has the ability to, deceive
and mislead this House, either deliberately or otherwise.
I want to conclude by saying that it is critical that all Members of this
House of Assembly and the Officers of the House of Assembly be held to the same
standard of conduct as provided in the House of Assembly Act. It is also
critical that the integrity of the House and its deliberations be maintained.
Recent statements of the Leader of the Opposition must be interpreted in a
manner that he intended them to be interpreted by members of the House and the
public. Therefore, the exact statements of the Leader of the Opposition must be
measured against the exact findings contained in the Auditor General's report
for the year ended March 31, 2000.
I ask that the House of Assembly, pursuant to the House of Assembly Act, that
we would ask you to rule upon this and find that indeed there has been a breach
of the privileges of members of this House.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I get into, I guess, our opinion on the question of privilege, let me
say that a question of privilege is rarely raised in the House; and members,
when raising a question of privilege, must opt to do so because of the serious
nature that such a point of privilege contains.
Let me say first of all, Mr. Speaker, that I believe, based upon the rules in
this House, that the point of privilege raised by the Deputy Premier is, unto
itself, unparliamentary, simply because it goes to motive. He is impugning on
the Leader of the Opposition, a motive of being purposeful in intent to either
deceive or to otherwise create a false perception.
I believe and I submit to Your Honour, the Chair of the House and the Speaker
of the House, that, unto itself, impugning motives on another member - it is
clear and the Deputy Premier knows this, as a former House Leader - that unto
itself is unparliamentary.
Let me also say, because he has quoted certain things outside this
Legislature, a distinction - and I say to Your Honour that, in ruling on this
matter, we bear in mind that there is a distinction in Beauchesne , under
Parliamentary Rules, between questions of privilege and questions of order. I
quote 26.(1), "A question of order concerns the
interpretation to be put
upon the rules of procedure and is a matter for the Speaker or, in a committee,
for the Chairman to determine."
On page 13 of Beauchesne , 31.(1), it says, "A dispute arising
between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions
of parliamentary privilege."
Section 31.(3) - this is important, because
the Deputy Premier, the former House Leader under the government, knows the
rules of Beauchesne , has quoted statements made by the Leader of the
Opposition, the Member for Humber West, outside this Legislature, and it is very
clear - and I quote for your consideration, 31.(3), "Statements made
outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of
privilege."
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you, in
summary, this: One, the question of
privilege raised by the Deputy Premier unto itself is unparliamentary, because
it goes and impugns a motive on another member which, unto itself - standard
practice and tradition in this House say that is not parliamentary.
Secondly, what we are looking at here is not so much a point of privilege but
a point of order and a distinction between two members' statements.
Thirdly, that the Deputy Premier, in his submission to Your Honour, has
clearly used statements outside of this House as a basis for his point of
privilege, which onto themselves, Mr. Speaker, are clearly unparliamentary. The
fact remains that the basis, I submit, for this point of privilege is to try to
underscore again the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is doing his job in
questioning the government on the management of the finances.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: That onto itself, Mr. Speaker, is unparliamentary. The fact
remains that the questions asked in this House, references made, were made based
upon standing reports that have been presented to this Assembly, not only for
the members purview but for the review and purview of the entire listening
public.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, not to prolong the matter, a serious matter, but
just simply to say that, with reference to the unparliamentary language or any
unparliamentary accusations, I clearly heard the Deputy Premier several times
refer to the fact that he was not making any accusations in that matter, and
certainly covered himself on three or four occasions to say that the Leader of
the Opposition did not do it deliberately. So, he certainly did not do that. I
am quite certain that if the Deputy Premier did that, he would do what all
parliamentarians do and withdraw unequivocally.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make that clarification, that there was no
attempt by the Deputy Premier to say anything unparliamentary or to attempt
anything unparliamentary.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point raised by the minister under
advisement.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to stand in the House today to recognize the longevity of four
individuals in my district who have reached milestones, I guess, that most of us
here, and other people we know, would like to achieve, four people in my
district who have celebrated their 100 th , their 101 st and
102 nd birthdays since the closure of this House last May.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the individuals names
for the pleasure of the people hearing them here in this House.
Mrs. Annie Belle Johnson, who is residing at Shirley's Haven in Catalina,
recently celebrated her 100 th birthday; Mrs. Laura Sweet, at the
Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista, recently celebrated here 101 st
birthday; Mrs. Gertrude Hobbs, of Jamestown, Bonavista Bay, who is residing with
her daughter, recently celebrated her 101 st birthday; and Mrs. Gladys
Yetman, residing at the Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista, recently celebrated
her 102 nd birthday.
I say to members here, it is an inspiration to be able to sit and talk to
those four individuals who can recall times past and can recall the events
leading right up today. The old clich that we have all heard growing up, is
always repeated when you talk with them: Hard work never hurt anybody.
They are a testimony to that phrase, and I would like to recognize their
birthdays and their special celebrations, right here in this House today.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: I am sure all members here join with me in wishing those
four individuals many years of happiness and health as they continue to enjoy
life with their family and friends.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize the work of a Bell Islander, Russell Bowers, in
promoting the work and telling the life story of one of Newfoundland's
greatest musical artists, Harry Hibbs.
The first product of his labour is an album entitled The Very Best of
Harry Hibbs, Volume One . Since its release in August of this year, the album
has had amazing sales. Interest is coming not only from the generation who
listened to Harry, but it is also introducing the music to a new younger
audience who are experiencing it for the first time.
There has been much interest in Harry Hibbs since his death in 1989, after a
brief battle with cancer. Russell Bowers, who lived on Bell Island, started
compiling the album and it fascinated him so much to hear the tales from people
who had worked with the musician, that Bowers decided to take it one step
further.
Bowers is now working on volume two and has also completed a documentary for
CBC Radio, which aired in October. He thinks there may be a TV documentary and
perhaps a book.
I should point out also that Russell's family still lives on Bell Island.
His parents, Steadman and Daisy, reside there today.
Harry Hibbs has made a major contribution to the music of this Province, and
I ask Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in recognizing the work
of Russell Bowers and offering him our best wishes in the future on this
project.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
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 offer congratulations to a very special couple, Majors Ross
and Beulah Cole, residents of South River, Conception Bay. Today, they celebrate
their 65 th wedding anniversary. This wonderful couple were married in
Deer Lake on November 26, 1936, raising a family of four, a family that has
extended into twelve grandchildren and twenty great-grandchildren.
Not only did this couple dedicate their lives to their family, but they also
made a commitment to their faith. Both Ross and Beulah answered the call to the
Ministry by committing their lives in the service of their Savior through the
Salvation Army Corps, accepting postings in all corners of this Province
including Clarkes Beach, Fortune, Springdale and Lewisporte.
At an Open House, Mr. Speaker, at the Salvation Army Citadel in Clarkes Beach
on Saturday past, Majors Ross and Beulah, surrounded by their family, were
visited by friends and dignitaries. It was amazing to see the steady stream of
well wishers intent on offering congratulations to a couple whose lives were
such an inspiration to others, whose service to others and to their God has been
unwavering for close to ninety years.
Mr. Speaker, this couple continue to contribute in many different capacities
in their Church, their community, in any way they can to help improve the
quality of life for those around them. In my conversation with both Major Ross
and Major Beulah, I was assured by them that they did not intend to slow down as
long as they could enjoy -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was assured by them that they did not intend to slow down as long as they
could enjoy continued good health. This humble couple were very appreciative of
the attention they received from their family and friends, thankful for the
congratulations I conveyed from the Premier, from the Leader of the Opposition,
the Prime Minister and the Lieutenant-Governor.
I respectfully ask all the members of this House to join with me in extending
congratulations to Majors Ross and Beulah Cole on the occasion of their 65 th
wedding anniversary, wishing them continued years of health and prosperity.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this House today to acknowledge and congratulate the volunteer
efforts of Mr. Ford Rumbolt of Mary's Harbour and Ms Agnes Pike of West St.
Modeste. Both individuals were not only awarded the Provincial Volunteer Medal
by his Hon. the Lieutenant Governor, Maxwell House, at a ceremony in Goose Bay
last week, but they also received awards for twenty years of service to
municipal government in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, Ms Pike is currently the mayor of West St. Modeste, President of
the Combined Councils of Labrador, a Director on the International Grenfell
Association, a Director on the Labrador Straits Economic Development Committee,
and also holds a set on the provincial Literacy Council, the Strategic Social
Plan Committee for Labrador, and the Labrador Straits Family Resource Center.
She has given more than twenty-five years to volunteer work in Newfoundland and
Labrador, contributing to the enhancement and progress of communities and
people.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rumbolt is currently the Deputy Mayor of Mary's Harbour,
Vice-President of the Combined Councils of Labrador, Vice-President of the
Southeastern Aurora Development Corporation, and holds positions on the Lions
Club and the Local Church Committee. He has over twenty-five years of volunteer
work in our Province and continues to advocate on behalf of the people of his
region.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to learn
and work with both these individuals. They have demonstrated many times their
commitment to the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and also to our
Province. It is my honor to recognize both of these individuals in this House
today and to congratulate them for receiving these dual awards.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Mrs. Edith
Bailey, a wonderful lady from my district, who is celebrating her 100 th
birthday today.
Aunt Ede, as she is affectionately known to her friends, lives in Hickman's
Harbour on Random Island. She is very alert, has a great sense of humor and is
very active. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night, at a birthday dinner, she
stood, took the microphone and said grace before the meal started.
Mr. Speaker, one other remarkable thing about Aunt Ede is her family history.
I am sure that family must hold some form of record in Newfoundland because she
has had two sisters who have reached the age of 103, one other who has reached
the age of 99, another 97, and her mother died just three months short of
reaching 100. Obviously, that family has achieved some sort of record, have
recognized what it takes to live a long and prosperous life in rural
Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask everybody in this House to join me today in wishing
Aunt Ede a very happy 100 th birthday.
Just to show you that she has not lost her sense of humor, and she still
believes in Santa Claus, her request to Santa Claus this year is pretty simple
and straightforward; she wants something very simple, like a man.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to relate a
notable accomplishment on the Burin Peninsula.
In 1999 the 3L Training Board under the direction of George Doyle embarked on
a plan to create employment opportunities for persons with developmental
disabilities in the area of St. Lawrence, Little St. Lawrence and Lawn.
Their intent was to show that persons with challenging needs could be
productive, contributing members of society. With the support of various groups
and organizations I am delighted to say that their dream has turned into a
reality.
Through forming their own company under the name of Island Rock Jewelry and
using raw materials donated by St. Lawrence Mineral Products these challenging
needs clients are producing beautiful handcrafted gemstone jewelry and souvenir
items.
Some of these items, Mr. Speaker, are being displayed today outside the
cafeteria in the West Block. The Member for Grand Bank district and I are both
supportive and proud of this initiative and we urge all members and the general
public to support this very worthwhile project.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier has spoken quite often about an open and a transparent and an
accountable government. An example of this is supposed to be Bill 49,
An Act To
Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy. Mr.
Speaker, if this act is passed in its present form, it will enable this
government to be more secretive, less open, less accountable and less
transparent.
My question for the Premier is: How can you state that your government will
be more open and more transparent when
section 72.(1)(
k) of this particular bill
authorizes Cabinet to allow local bodies, such as councils, to conduct meetings
in secret?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I know how valuable time is in Question Period, and maybe the
Speaker might like to inform and remind all of us that I have heard it ruled in
this House many times in the twelve-and-a-half years that I have been here, that
it is out of order to ask a question about a bill that is on the Order Paper,
because we will answer all those questions in debate on that bill, and will
gladly do so, and speak about all of the very fine new legislation that will
make our Freedom of Information Act the very finest in the country.
If he has some objections, there is a debate at second reading, there is a
committee stage, and there is a full debate that every single member of this
House can speak to if they have any objections to any of the dozens and dozens
of new, forward-thinking, open and accountable clauses that are in that piece of
legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I just want to remind the hon. members of the manner in
which we have dealt with questions that arise out of legislation that may be on
the Order Paper. We have researched this in other jurisdictions and the ruling
that was made recently on this, here in this House, was that unless the
Government House Leader informs the Chair that a piece of legislation will be
brought to the floor of the House, that the piece of legislation that is on the
Order Paper is to be debated on a particular day, then the Chair will allow
questions on some of the legislation that is before the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Premier, I have not been here for
some twelve years, I have only been here for one week, but I was aware of your
ruling which was made in March of last year. I have a copy of that for the
Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly; he is on a
supplementary.
MR. WILLIAMS: My first question has not been answered, Mr. Speaker, so I
will ask the Premier: How can you state that your government will be transparent
and open when
section 72.(1)(
k) of the bill authorizes Cabinet to allow local
bodies, such as councils, to conduct meetings in secret?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To my knowledge, and I do not have the bill in front of me right now,
although it has gone through our full Cabinet and committee system, we are very
proud of it, Mr. Speaker. We are very proud of the fact that we are introducing
brand new leading edge, nation wide leading edge, legislation with respect to
freedom of information, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Two comments I would make, and maybe the Leader of the
Opposition can enlighten me as he did with respect to the ruling - and I always
appreciate him; I am always here to learn. I was a teacher in my career,
understanding that the main part about teaching is being willing to learn. You
have to be a receptive listener and learner, Mr. Speaker, always willing to
learn.
Two things: to my knowledge, the word secret is not in the legislation. Mr.
Speaker, it has always been a practice and maybe he would like - he is
confirming, I think, that it is not there, that it is his word, that it is not
in the legislation. It is very typical of what he did all last week, Mr.
Speaker, when he tried to use language that was not in the Auditor General's
report. The word secret, to my knowledge, is not in the legislation.
It has always been a practice, and I know he has participated in it himself
when he has been involved in public organizations that he has represented as a
member of the general public, and glad to do so as a volunteer, where it is
necessary from time to time for a group or organization to have some private
meetings so there can be a fuller discussion; because sometimes, Mr. Speaker,
they are discussing individuals, personalities, people's wages, things that
they have to make a full and frank discussion and decision about. Then, Mr.
Speaker, the act also says that the outcome of those private meetings - not
secret; to my knowledge that word is not there - the outcome of those private
meetings have to be disclosed in a public meeting.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to clarify that secret
is his word, not the word of this government, not the word in the legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Secondly, would he confirm that in his mind, because it
is his first question of the day, that is the most important and critical issue
on his mind and the minds of the Opposition today in this Province, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: Because that is the question he asked.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The exact words in the legislation are, "...in the absence of the
public...", which mean in secret, code of silence, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question
quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in his leadership campaign, policy statement
number six, in January of this year, the Premier told the people of the Liberal
Party who placed him in office as Premier, and I quote him: The new Freedom of
Information -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I have to remind the hon. member that when questions are asked in this House,
we cannot have
preambles or read from documents, from telegrams and others. We
cannot quote that. So I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly. He
is on a supplementary.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
- should not be used as a vehicle to frustrate or prevent the quick
dissemination of public information.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member cannot quote from documents or telegrams or extracts from
documents when he is presenting questions in the House.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would ask the Premier: If he is so interested in providing the public with
information, why does
section 23(1)(
e) of the bill prevent disclosure of
information about negotiations carried on by your government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I do appreciate the acknowledgment of the Leader of the Opposition
that the word `secret' was his word and is not in the Freedom of Information
Act in Newfoundland and Labrador, not intended to be, never ever suggested that
it might be, and Mr. Speaker, the exact words are: ...in the absence of the
public unless another act expressly authorizes the local public body to hold
meetings in the absence of the public and so on.
So, Mr. Speaker, again to point out, the people of the Province should
understand that of all the issues confronting us in Newfoundland and Labrador
today, this issue is in the minds of the Leader of the Opposition and the
Opposition Party. The most important thing on the minds of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians today is whether or not a town council can have a private meeting
before they resort and report the results of it to the public meeting. So I am
assuming there is something else that is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador
that might be a little more urgent today than that, which we are going to debate
here between now and Christmas, and we will come to amendments if we need them
to make it more acceptable to the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the
Leader of the Opposition would not suggest that every single negotiation -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is not going to suggest that
every single negotiation that occurs between the government and any agency,
organization or business that it is dealing with, should be held, like these
meetings are, in front of the television cameras.
Mr. Speaker, if that is his position, I would be glad to have him spell it
out for the people of the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: The negotiations that are before the people of this
Province are very, very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
Premier. Isn't is a fact that
Section 23(1)(
c) of the act gives you and your
government virtual veto power to deny the public information about any
negotiations which your government carries on, including Voisey's Bay and
including the Lower Churchill?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Understanding, Mr. Speaker, again that the Leader of the
Opposition likes yes or no answers, the answer to that is clearly and obviously
no. There are no such restriction in this act.
Mr. Speaker, I know now that the Opposition finds it hard to acknowledge, and
they do not like to acknowledge, that this has been, since February 13, the most
open and accountable government that this Province has ever seen. Mr. Speaker,
has ever seen!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, you can check the records in terms of
information that has been provided to this government. It has gone immediately
to the public and will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker, our standard is this: When we are to enter into an arrangement
on behalf of the people of the Province, it will be for the betterment of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and all of the details will be disclosed to
every single soul in the Province who has an interest in it. There is no
`secrecy' with this government. That is a word from the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier is obviously not familiar with the provisions
of the act, Mr. Speaker.
Section 23(1)(
c) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
states that the Premier and his government -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, the member ought not to be quoting from documents. He is on a
supplementary. He should not require any
preamble. He should get to his question
immediately.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Premier, I would ask you: Given this year's increasing deficit, why
does
section 23(1)(
c) of this act give the government the absolute right to deny
to the public vital information which would enable them to determine the impact
on public services and programs in this Province? That is
section 23(1)(c),
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it does not do that. This government has no
plan to do that. Mr. Speaker, I know they find that hard to understand, but the
whole notion on the modus operandi for this government is that, when there are
issues that are of importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they
are fully disclosed and fully debated.
I know the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, does not understand that, because when
the people that they used to support were in government - because I am not
allowed to say when they were in government, because there are none of them
there. There is not a soul over there, Mr. Speaker. They have one who is a
former premier that they have relegated to the far end of the bench, Mr.
Speaker, the very far end of the bench, because they do not want to be tied to
things that they used to do and used to support. So, in fact, we will be judged
proudly and gladly any day by our record which will be full, open disclosure and
accountability, the likes of which has not been seen by any government in this
Province before, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: My final question for the Premier is: Why are he and his
government using this very, very important piece of legislation to deny vital
information to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? What are you trying to
hide?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me point out again, what the Leader of
the Opposition is talking about is a bill that has been presented to this
Legislature for debate. What he is talking about is not the law. If they have
registered these objections and can substantiate in the debate that the
proposition and preposition, that he is putting forward today, has some
validity, we would even consider, as we always do, Mr. Speaker, appropriate
amendments during the committee stage.
If you have a concern, lets debate it during the debate. We are hiding
nothing. What we committed to, Mr. Speaker, when we established the review
committee and when the Minister of Justice put the group in place and sent them
around the Province and around the country, we committed to have the most
up-to-date, most modern, piece of freedom of information legislation, anywhere
in the country. Mr. Speaker, what's in our legislation reflects what is in the
legislation in Canada and in North America today. We will gladly hear about it
in the debate which will go on for the next couple of weeks.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
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 question this afternoon is for the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
Mr. Speaker, we have been making public statements about how this government
does not have a plan for health care. We have been making some comments about
how this government continues to ignore advice that they are getting from people
in the system. We continue to say that this government is reacting to Budget
deficits and not functioning with a plan.
This past weekend, Mr. Speaker, we had the executive director of the Health
Boards Association saying that this government does not have a strategic plan.
The executive director of the Health Boards Association was saying that there
are not operational plans, there are no operational standards. Mr. Speaker, the
executive director is saying that there are no operational benchmarks.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What they are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that without those kinds of standards,
without those guidelines, without those plans, there are major inconsistencies
in the system as health boards are trying to implement their plans.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: How can this government be out
spending $1.4 billion of this Province's money, $1.4 billion of taxpayers'
money - we have already heard her say it is 44 per cent of our budget - how can
we spend $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money without a plan? I ask the minister
if she would provide that answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I find the gentleman's question rather
perplexing because I know the Member for Trinity North was part of two of the
regional health forums that were conducted. I know that he participated as an
observer at the forum that was taking place in Clarenville, to the point where
he even spoke to me afterwards to compliment me on the process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Let me say, as part of that whole process of our regional
forums, and again in the provincial forum which will take place over the next
two days, the whole purpose of those boards was to look at all of the different
elements that we need to have in place in order to have a strategic approach to
health care in this Province.
This is not news, Mr. Speaker. This is something that I prefaced our regional
forums with, saying that there are key elements of planning that need to be done
in this Province in order to have a strategic approach to health care, and I
have asked the people of the Province, through all of the stakeholders, over 400
people who have participated in these forums, to assist me in doing this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North, a supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying, one more time,
that she is ignoring what the health boards are saying? These are the people
whom she has appointed, these are the people on the front lines who are running
our health system. Is the minister saying, one more time, that she is going to
ignore what the Health Boards Association is saying, and is she saying that
there are plans, and is she saying that the Health Boards Association and the
members that they represent, the health boards in this Province, don't know
what they are talking about? Is the minister saying that there is a plan and
that the Health Boards Association is completely wrong and that they don't
know what they are talking about? Is that what she is saying?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, again when the Member for Trinity North was at
the forum in Clarenville - and I believe he also attended the forum in Corner
Brook - he was aware and would have recognized along with everybody else
attending the forum, that every one of our health boards likewise participated
in these forums. Every one of our health boards, our chairs, our CEOs, and
numerous other members of our health boards, took
part in these regional forums
with the express purpose of trying to look at the key issues that we have and to
give us our best advise on the six major planning areas.
Mr. Speaker, we published a document that we circulated and made available on
the Internet, made available all across this Province as people wanted it, that
identified six key planning areas that we were asking people to give us their
advise so that we can in fact form a strategic health plan.
So I say again, Mr. Speaker, this is something we are actively working on.
That is the whole purpose of the forums, that is why they are so valuable, and I
am really looking forward to the provincial culmination of it tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North, final supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the minister is not
being very direct, because there are no standards, there are no guidelines.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, this government has spent and is spending
$1.4 billion of taxpayers' money without a plan.
I ask, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister give the people of this Province some
comfort in saying that at least by next year there will be a plan before we go
out and spend another $1.4 billion? Can the minister give us that assurance?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much more direct I can be in
this regard.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know how much more direct I can
be in this regard. The department has plans, the boards have plans, and we, as a
government, initiated a Province-wide consultation which members opposite have
taken different positions on. Because, as I say, the Member for Trinity North,
in speaking to the media on occasion, has indicated that the whole regional
forum thing was useless and that it was not something we should be doing; yet,
in speaking to me and to the facilitators of the sessions, has indicated that
they thought it was productive.
That aside, the purpose of these forums was to look at our six major planning
areas and to be able to devise from that a strategic health plan. That is our
intention. We are doing the consultation that is necessary to deliver on that.
It is just the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are, as well, for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
Since the end of September, and that is almost two months, a particular
patient has been occupying a bed in an intensive care unit in St. John's,
waiting to access the home care he needs to enable him to go home. Because there
is a freeze on home care, he occupies an expensive ICU bed, even though he is
not in need of such a high level of care. I would like to ask the minister: When
is this government going to stop wasting taxpayers' money and start managing
the Province's health care system responsibly, cost-effectively and
efficiently?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, home support in this Province costs over $50
million today. We are at a stage with home support where all of our boards, in
every region of the Province, have to have wait lists in order to be able to try
and contain the projected over-expenditure above and beyond that budget.
This is a very, very difficult area of health care for everyone to deal with.
We know that there are particular, very complex -
[Technical difficulties.]
MR. SPEAKER: I guess what we should probably do is recess for a few
minutes until we get this problem corrected. Is that in agreement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: We will now take a short recess.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
When the House recessed, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services, I believe, was responding to a question from the hon. the Member for
St. John's West.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I had begun to explain that, of
course, the home support area of our health care system is one of the major cost
drivers that we have in health care, and even with the fact that we have $50
million in the home support budget this year, all of our regions are having to
have wait lists in place for all of their services.
Yes, we know there are complex cases in many cases that are within the
institutions, the acute care setting, that are awaiting home support services,
and we have asked the boards to work very closely with the acute care boards,
with the institutional boards, to try and resolve these issues. However, there
remains a very difficult financial problem with all of this, when you look at
the fact that the boards are projecting an additional $5 million
over-expenditure in this area, and they are trying to make every effort to live
within this budget.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude her answer.
MS BETTNEY: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the needs of the individual here
are paramount and I am certain that our officials, along with the boards, will
attempt to do everything possible to resolve this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's
West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are talking about budgets here. I would like to say to the minister: The
cost of this patient's home care has been projected to cost about $30,000 per
year. The cost of his ICU bed is in excess of $500,000 a year. Why is the
minister jeopardizing vital health services when there is clear evidence that
government's poor planning is causing gross waste in our health system?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, this, of course, is the responsibility of the
Health and Community Services Board. They have this challenge of trying to
deliver home support, along with a majority of other programs and services in
this region. They are working very closely, I understand from my officials, with
the St. John's Health Care Corporation in this area, to try and find solutions
to some of these complex cases. In many cases they require special kinds of
services that are not easily available or provided through home support. Each
one is individual and I am sure they will do their best to try and resolve them
as quickly as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. It involves the
sale of the Marystown Shipyard. Recognizing that negotiations are ongoing,
Miguel Pazos, President of Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited, was quoted this
past weekend as saying that a sale of the Marystown Shipyard was contingent upon
the White Rose project going ahead. Will the Premier confirm that is the case,
Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Trade, Industry and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. gentleman from Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi is the same as I made to the Opposition House Leader. There are
negotiations ongoing to hopefully open the Marystown Shipyard and put people
back to work there. I think it would be somewhat premature at this time, and I
think it would be somewhat harmful to the process of negotiations, to say any
particular company were doing this.
We are meeting with the unions, the Chambers of Commerce, and the town
council. We are not being secretive about it, but we are carrying on
negotiations in a way that they are normally carried on. Hopefully, they will
benefit not only the people who will work in Marystown when we are finished, but
contrary to what the Opposition House Leader asked the other day, I would hope
that in the process we are able to take care of some of the local unsecured
creditors there as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The people of Marystown are also hearing that the proponent of the White Rose
project is contemplating a one-year delay in that project. Is this true, I ask
the Premier, and how long will the people of Marystown have to wait for some
response and jobs in the shipyard that this Province has put so much money into?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that we are
carrying on negotiations with a group of people. In regard to the Husky project,
it is our understanding that at this point in time - and the Minister of Mines
and Energy would be in a better position than I would, maybe, but - the benefits
plans is being prepared or about to be submitted to the minister to have a look
at. There are thirty days which he has to respond to it. Then the company has to
give project sanction after that period of time, after the minister....
I say to him that it serves no useful purpose, as much as he might like to
score some political points on this, it serves no useful purpose for him to
stand up today and try to instill fear and kill the hope that the people of
Marystown might have.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: It is doom and gloom, I say to him. Think positive! Be
positive, as the people of Marystown are positive, and stand up and try to get a
solution to the problem rather than score political points.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the Annual Report of the
Office of the High Sheriff of Newfoundland for the period April 01, 2000 to
March 31, 2001.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Thursday, the member opposite asked a question about the Province's real
GDP forecast for next year. For the record, and for the people of the Province's
benefit, I would like to explain what real GDP measures and how it is
calculated. Real GDP, Mr. Speaker, is a measure of quantity. It holds prices
constant at 1997 levels and is affected only by changes in production volume.
Real GDP indicates changes in the level of economic activity and it is driven by
many things, including production gains, not price, in oil and gas, newsprint,
mining and other industries.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite referred to a report by the International
Monetary Fund in his question. The International Monetary Fund is an
international organization which promotes international monetary co-operation
through various means including temporary financial assistance to Third World
countries. The International Monetary Fund completes annual economic forecasts
but, Mr. Speaker, it is not a credit rating agency and its forecasts are not
generally comprehensive enough to use at the Canadian or the provincial level.
Both the federal government and the Province rely on domestic as well as the
U.S. economic forecasting agencies such as the Conference Board of Canada and
major chartered banks.
The IMF report referred to by the member opposite acknowledges that the
Canadian economy is slowing, and on that point we all agree. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, our GDP forecast for the next year takes into account a number of
factors including a slowing North American economy. Other factors which are used
when forecasting GDP growth include consumer spending -
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: - employment rates, investment spending, construction -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise on a point of order because this is an abuse of the House. These
questions were never asked by me at all. I ask the minister to refer to Hansard
to find out what I asked. She indicated today that she would table the
information in this House, and the questions referred to were never asked by
anyone here in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. It is an abuse of time in this House
under Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I think it is important to have the answers for the people of the
Province. Mr. Speaker, I think the questions asked were of a very significant
nature about GDP. It is not something that is in the normal vocabulary of
everyone, but I think it is important to respond in a very clear way so I will
continue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I reported in my mid-year economic statement just last week, the private
sector forecasters predict real GDP growth in Newfoundland and Labrador to be at
4.5 per cent for next year. This is consistent with our view and will mark the
fourth year of strong growth since 1997. Growth in 2002 will be concentrated in
the oil industry, Mr. Speaker. The combined production from Hibernia and Terra
Nova, should they increase, we expect White Rose construction to begin pending
government approval and offshore exploration should increase.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite questioned the impact of lower oil prices on
the Province's revenue stream. At budget time, the forecast for oil prices was
at $23 U.S. a barrel. From April to October, the average price was approximately
$27 U.S. per barrel. Without a doubt, the price of oil per barrel has
fluctuated; however, we expect the price per barrel to average about $23 U.S.
for this year, consistent with our forecast.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am proud to present another petition today in the House of Assembly on the
bulk export of water from this Province, or against the bulk export of water
from the Province. The prayer of the petition reads:
We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of
Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of
water from this Province.
Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls -
MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).
MR. T. OSBORNE: I say to the Member for Bellevue, this is an important
petition signed by the people of this Province and you should listen.
Mr. Speaker, every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been
developed in Newfoundland and Labrador, has resulted in the majority of benefits
going outside the Province. It is time that we demand our full and fair share.
With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the
opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff from secondary
processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled
and processed in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, we have presented a number of petitions on this very important
issue. The people of this Province have spoken very loudly and very clearly on
this issue, I say to the Premier and to the members opposite. This is an
important issue. This is a resource that this Province has the ability to
maximize full benefits for the people of the Province, the people who own the
resource. We have the opportunity here, on this resource, to ensure that the
people of the Province get the full benefit in terms of jobs, spinoff royalties,
and everything else that goes along with this resource. We should not, in any
way, shape or form, entertain bulk export of water from this Province. We have
done that on other resources throughout the years. We have exported other
resources in bulk, to see the major benefits go to others from outside the
Province without getting the major resources for this Province. That formula has
not worked over decades and decades of trying it. This time, Mr. Speaker, we
should get it right.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 2.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable
Television Companies Act," carried.(Bill 52).
On motion, Bill 52 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion 8, Mr. Speaker.
On motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act," carried.(Bill 55)
On Motion, Bill 55 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 25, Mr. Speaker, the adjourned debate on Bill 36. I
believe it was the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi who adjourned the debate.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words at second reading on
Bill 36 which is,
An Act To Amend The Law To Consider Same Sex Cohabiting
Partners In The Same Manner As Opposite Sex Cohabiting Partners.
Mr. Speaker, this bill was debated on Thursday when the minister spoke, and
the Member for Lewisporte. The Member for Lewisporte, I think, pointed out that
what the government was actually doing here was recognizing its obligations as
had been outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada to the Province of Ontario in
requiring that province, and by implication every province and jurisdiction, to
ensure that the laws of the Province did not discriminate against same sex
partners with respect to benefits and other issues.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has presented a piece of legislation. I
think it has not had the kind of detailed study that perhaps it should have or
may well have, although I hope it does get passed. It is one of those pieces of
legislation that refers to a number of other pieces of legislation, including
the Powers of Attorney Act, interesting the Conflict of Interest Act. What it
does here is indicate that the conflict of interest legislation that applies to
Members of the House of Assembly, that would apply in the case of cohabiting
partners of opposite sex, would apply equally to same sex partners. That is
clearly something that should be the law.
It is interesting, I suppose, and ironic in a way, that this law in fact
places obligations on people or potential prohibitions on people as well as
provides benefits to people. The contrast would be something such as the
Conflict of Interest Act where I think it would be quite appropriate to
recognize that a conflict of interest might just as easily exist with same sex
cohabiting partners as with an opposite sex cohabiting couple. I think it is
right and appropriate that it does.
I think, to be fair, Mr. Speaker, the advocacy groups for the community who
are most interested in this have commented in presentations both to the minister
and to other members of the House that they want to be treated, and same sex
couples, to be treated equally with non-same sex couples with opposite sex
cohabiting partners, and it is appropriate that there be responsibilities as
well as benefits such as we see in other pieces of legislation such as the
pensions legislations, the Memorial University Pensions Act, the Government
Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, the Pension Benefits Act, the Public Service
Pensions Act, the Teachers' Pensions Act, the Workers' Compensation Act, the
Uniformed Services Pensions Act, and the Municipalities Act, on a conflict of
interest as well. Just as we saw the changes to the Family Law Act, these
provided for support obligations for cohabiting couples and made the same
obligations for support for cohabiting couples as existed for opposite sex
cohabiting couples.
Also, it went further than that, Mr. Speaker, and permitted same sex couples
to adopt the provisions of what used to be called the Matrimonial Property Act.
It is now part of the Family Law Act in relation to property rights,
co-ownership of assets, and provision for what happens to assets when the
couple, or partners, separate. Provision can now be made to that extent.
There is one area, though, in discussions with the minister and his staff,
that we had in discussion of this bill, was something that I want to speak about
because it is something I believe a lot of people in this Province are
misinformed about. Many people in this Province believe that if a couple live
together for a specified period of time, depending on the person you are talking
to, or depending on what their source of information is - and whatever source it
is, it is incorrect - but depending on their source of information, many believe
that if a man and a woman live together for a specified period of time, be it
one year, two years, three years or five years, that gives them property rights
with respect to the house they are living in or the property of the other
spouse. That is a widespread belief in this Province, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister: I think the minister knows that, as someone who has
practiced law in the Province and who has encountered this belief. Certainly, it
is something that I have heard many, many times. Even some lawyers who have not
looked at the act but may have received their legal education in other Provinces
may be of that belief as well. I say that not to be offensive to lawyers but
just to suggest that, because other provinces have legislation of that nature,
particularly the Province of Quebec and some others, many people in this
Province believe that to be the law.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe it should be the law. I believe that we
should have legislation that recognizes that when a couple are cohabiting in a
relationship that is an enduring relationship of a specified number of years - I
am not proposing a one-year, two-year or three-year rule at the moment, but I do
think that there are many, many situations where young couples go into the
purchase or the building of a house together; they share the cost. One family
member or one family may have provided the land. Both couples, together, put
their savings together, put their cash into the house, and that sort of thing.
Only with respect to the complex law of constructive trusts do they have an
interest in that property. I say complex because it is what quite often is
factually and legally complex, and quite often the source of, as the Member for
St. John's East points out, constructive trust litigations can take place
where couples have to spend an inordinate amount of money to sort out their
respective rights if the relationship does not work out.
I suggest to the minister that this may be an opportunity, although I realize
we are not dealing with the family law aspect of this right now, but this may be
an appropriate time, whether it be this fall or next spring, to consider
amending the Family Law Act to provide for the circumstances where a couple who
cohabit for a specified period of time, do enjoy the same rights with respect to
property, particularly in a matrimonial home, so-called under the Family Law
Act, but I assume we would have to rename what that home would be called if it
was to apply both to cohabiting couples as well as to those who are actually
married.
I think the time has come for us to revisit that law, to see whether or not
we should adopt the same law as the Province of Quebec. I believe we should, Mr.
Speaker, because we do have circumstances that go on in some cases for many,
many years. Within the situation of a relationship, it is quite often difficult,
after a couple of years have passed, for one partner - or sometimes the
relationship may not be as rosy as people have thought going into it. There may
be a situation where people cannot change that, where you cannot go to your
partner and say: I want to put my name on the house now, after we have lived
together for so many years, one year, two years, three years, four years. All of
the sudden one member of the couple is starting to feel a bit insecure about
their financial position or their relationship, or they are afraid they might
get kicked out, for example, where the other spouse owns the house and they
might be left with nothing. It can lead to situations where there can be abusive
relationships that endure because of insecurities, in the same way that they
happened before the Matrimonial Property Act gave equal rights to both partners
in the matrimonial home.
That reform was brought in to recognize property rights, yes, and to
recognize the equality of a relationship, yes, but also to ensure that both
partners in a relationship had a stake in the home that they together maintained
or contributed to in one way or another. You can contribute to a property and a
home by maintaining it, by cleaning it, by assisting in its maintenance. You can
go through the whole legalities of the constructive trust that people have
talked about, or you can have a statutory recognition of the relationship and
what flows with that. In this case, I would submit, a home that is the
equivalent of a matrimonial home for a non-married but cohabiting couple in a
significant relationship or in an enduring relationship.
I think that may, in fact, come as a shock to some people, Madam Speaker, if
that were to be introduced, because it would mean that it does change the
property relationships of longstanding couples, but I would think the time has
come for our government to recognize that there is an expectation that people
have in this Province, to recognize that there is some confusion about that, and
to recognize, I think, that people believe it should be the law.
I think that the minister should take it under advisement, and I would submit
that a time has come to change that law as well, so that cohabiting couples have
access to property rights over the home which becomes their home, in a real
sense, in an enduring relationship, whether or not they have gone through a form
of marriage. That still seems to be the case.
I have not looked at each and every clause of this legislation. This kind of
legislation tends to be quite complex because you are taking existing
legislation and changing certain words, taking some words out and putting other
words in. I know that the intent of the drafters of the legislation is that it
provide for the treatment of same sex cohabiting partners in the same manner as
opposite sex cohabiting partners. I am assuming that it does that with respect
to each and every piece of the legislation that it affects.
I want to say, I go on record, Mr. Speaker, as supporting this legislation,
as urging this legislation upon the minister and his government, just as we, for
the last twelve or fourteen years, urged upon the government the passage of
amendments to the Human Rights Code that would include sexual orientation as a
prohibited ground of discrimination.
I know for many years, Mr. Speaker, under former administrations that were
elected since 1989, the government refused to do that. The current Premier,
numerous times, indicated that he did not think the government needed to do that
or should do. We believed that it had to be done. The previous administration on
that side passed legislation amending the Human Rights Code with the full
support of our party, and at the urging of our party, to include sexual
orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Mr. Speaker, this
legislation is actually the outcome of a whole program of challenges by the
group seeking equality rights for gays and lesbians, same sex couples. This
legislation is part of the outcome of a number of years of challenging the law,
and finally getting the Supreme Court of Canada to pass a law requiring that
this type of legislation be passed.
So it is legislation that we support, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge the
minister to proceed with its implementation. Hopefully, we have done it all
right in terms of the detail, but that is something we can discuss at third
reading. I would urge the minister to also consider another step with respect to
cohabiting couples, whether they are same sex or opposite sex, that cohabiting
couple ought to obtain an interest, similar to that obtained by married couples,
in the matrimonial home. I think it is something whose time has come.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): If the minister speaks now, he does close debate.
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the comments of the Member for Lewisporte, the justice critic,
as well as the comments of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
The government is, of course, and will continue to be, open to receiving
input and suggestions and submissions from interested parties as to what in the
future we may do or where we ought to go in regards to same sex legislation.
However, I feel government has certainly made a major attempt and effort in the
last two sittings of this Legislature to deal with these rights, particularly
the amendments to the Family Law Act in the Spring sitting and now, in this
particular session right here, particularly the rights concerning the pension
benefits and issues. It is obviously an evolving area of the law, but I think it
is a positive proactive step and, in compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada
ruling, it brings us in line with the Mv.H ruling. That is certainly a very
positive move.
I look forward to any particular comments that members opposite might have in
committee stage but it appears that all parties are supportive of this piece of
legislation. Therefore, I move closing of debate on second reading.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
On Motion, a Bill, "
An Act to Amend The Law to Consider Same Sex
Cohabiting Partners In the Same Manner As Opposite Sex Cohabiting Partners"
read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on
tomorrow. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 16, Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 31,
An Act To
Repeal The Economic Advisory Council Act.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Economic
Advisory Council Act". (Bill 31)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to address Bill 31,
An Act To Repeal The Economic Advisory
Council Act, often referred to as ACE. As members of the House of Assembly will
recall, the Advisory Council on the Economy was replaced in 1997 by a new body
called the Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology. This combined both
the Council of Science as well as Council of Technology and really it has a much
broader mandate than the previous board of ACE.
This new board commenced operation in 1997 and it has already undertaken
several substantial pieces of work, including advise on the economy,
particularly renewing the EDGE program and also on taxation issues many of which
have been acted on already in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. The Chair of
the Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology is Mr. Peter Woodward of
Happy Valley, Goose Bay, and he is joined with a number of other prestigious
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians giving advise to government.
Mr. Speaker, since the elimination of ACE in 1997, the staff were transferred
to the Executive Council and work is being undertaken to formally wind up the
council. In December of 2000, approval was provided by the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council to ratify the transfer of the assets, and the final financial
statements for the Advisory Council on the Economy were completed last year.
While the Advisory Council on the Economy had its own staff, right now, Mr.
Speaker, government is providing direct support to this new group through
Executive Council, and they are able to draw upon the specific resources of
Executive Council and government, as well as individual departments, on the
various projects which they have undertaken. Mr. Speaker, the Advisory Council
on the Economy was established by legislation in this House of Assembly, and
that allowed this Advisory Council on the Economy to control its assets, the
bank accounts and so on
Mr. Speaker, this bill is really being put forth at the recommendation of the
Auditor General, and I understand how everyone has ultimate respect for the
Auditor General and her recommendations in this hon. House.
It is with that, that I ask my colleagues today to support this bill,
inasmuch as what it does is windup the old Advisory Council on the Economy and
allows the other Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology to carry on its
mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I would happy to answer any questions, but this is clearly in
keeping with the recommendation of the Auditor General who wrote government July
of this year advising that the Economic Advisory Council Act should be repealed
in the House of Assembly as soon as possible so that it is able to go off the
books, windup the accounts, and put everything in order.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not think the minister intended that the Auditor General recommended and
so on, not having an Advisory Council on the Economy. I think the intent was,
because there is an Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology that we
should not have a duplication or we should not have a second one. I think that
would be the intent, because I think it is important for this government to have
some advise on economic matters. In fact, I think you need it, to be honest with
you. Yes, I think they need advise on economic matters, when you have a Premier
who goes on the public airwaves on October 29 and tells us that the Newfoundland
economy should not be adversely affected by terrorist attacks.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?
MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier. It says: Grimes says, he doesn't think the
downturn that is predicted elsewhere will occur here, and we have the minister
on public airwaves telling us that it is going to have an effect. That is why
there is the poor mouth on our budget and we are not going to meet expectations.
How can you have the Minister of Finance saying one thing and the Premier of
our Province publicly saying something different? How does that help consumer
confidence and encourage spending in our economy today, to be able to generate
revenues in our Province?
The minister tries to say we said the sky is falling. Mr. Speaker, we have
never said the sky is falling, and I would like to clarify that for the minister
while we are on this matter. The minister said that we are saying the sky is
falling. I said, if a possible $400 million deficit next year means the sky is
falling, the sky is falling, because that is what we have. If the minister has
any doubt about that, on November 21 with Jim Brown, the minister was asked this
question - the announcer, Mr. Brown said: I just cannot help looking at these
numbers again and think that the $400 million figure Loyola Sullivan talked
about is not only possible, it is likely. Do you know what the minister said?
Well, it is, certainly. She agreed with me.
MR. TULK: Who talked about it?
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister agreed, I say to the Deputy Premier, who is
enquiring.
MR. TULK: It was the Member for Ferryland, not (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I am quoting was is said here. The announcer indicated and
made reference to me on suggesting a $400 million figure next year, and the
Minister of Finance said: Well, it is, certainly. That is what she said. She
agreed with me that it is possible. Here in print, I say to the minister. I will
give her a copy if she does not already have one.
Now, the minister did not make reference to what the assets or what the
liabilities were. This particular act here indicated that we "...wind up
the Economic Advisory Council and vest its assets in the Crown." Clause 2
of the bill, "Notwithstanding subsection 16(4) of the Economic Advisory
Council Act, title to all of the property and assets of the council, and the
liabilities of the council, are vested in the Crown."
I think, in winding up, it is appropriate the minister should tell this House
exactly what the assets are and what the liabilities are and what is involved
here, if we are going to wind up an Advisory Council on the Economy. Now, if we
broaden the scope of a committee and took in technology in other areas, it
should not lessen in importance the value that an economic council serves. In
fact, under this particular bill we are seeing certain responsibilities that
this council had, and I do not know whether the minister does not think she
needs any advice or whether the advice she received is not very good, because
her predictions are not very accurate.
We said, not just last week, we said when the Budget was brought down, that
this is not an accurate reflection of the revenues and expenditures of our
Province, and we were proven right with time. We were proven right. Now we are
seeing that the minister stood and delivered a financial statement of $80
million deficit, and we are saying that figure is not right. That figure is not
right, we are saying. It is not a true reflection.
She tells us, by telling that, we are going to affect consumer spending.
Look, I think the people of this Province want to know the truth, whether it is
good news or whether it is bad news. That is what I am indicating. There is
nothing going to affect consumer spending and confidence in our economy than the
actions of the government of the day. That is what dictates consumer spending
and confidence in our economy.
While we are on that topic, the minister said we are not going to move with
the third year of tax cuts in January, 2002, because we cannot afford to do it.
I say that we cannot afford not to. In fact, in the United States, and I will
use that and look at the spinoff effects, on three previous cases in history in
1920. In 1920, the Harding, Coolidge government introduced one of the biggest
tax cuts in history that resulted in the largest revenues coming in after taxes
when people said, we will take less revenues.
John F. Kennedy, in1963, introduced a series of tax cuts and a naysayer said:
Tax cuts are going to help out the rich. We are going to help the rich. Why give
a break to the rich?
History showed that more tax revenue was taken in than ever before.
When Ronald Regan, in the 1980s, did the same thing, we saw collectively
unprecedented growth in the economy, more tax revenues from income tax than
before tax cuts. Even Gore has indicated that George Bush tax cuts are going to
help out the rich. In fact, after tax cuts in U.S. history, 1 per cent of the
richest people paid a higher per cent of the taxes and more taxes than they did
after the tax cuts. What does it do? When you know you are not burdened with
diminishing returns on higher levels, it encourages you to invest, to spend, to
make more money, to pay more taxes, to grow the economy. We have to remove
barriers to economic growth, and the biggest barrier to economic growth is
taxation that is not conducive to growing the economy. We have to stop that
small-mind mentality of short-term at the expense of long-term gain. That is the
type of thing we have to do. We have to weather the storm in tough times, not
pull into port. That is what we have done. This government has pulled into port
and gone to the nearest dry dock and pulled up the boat in a tough storm,
instead of weathering the storm and fighting it head on. That is what you have
to do. When you stop fishing, production stops when you come into port. If you
can weather the storm in tough times, we will ride the waves a helluva lot
easier and be more prosperous in downturn.
Now, we find that some of the functions of the Advisory Council on the
Economy respond to requests from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, of Cabinet,
for commentary, evaluation, advice on subjects as chosen by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council. It said: Identify major economic issues which
the Province must address.
I do not know who the minister is now taking advice from. I do not know. I
can tell you one thing: it is not from the Board of Trade, when I saw the
release that was released on November 21. Her advice is not coming from the
Board of Trade, because they were on the same wavelength that we have been
stating here. One reference here by the Board of Trade president who said, he
has expressed concern for some time on the fiscal condition of the Province. He
said, the apple has been polished too much, for too long. As a result, people
believe the Province's financial condition is a lot better than it is.
I said the same things to that very same minister on the health care system
year after year, and they denied there was a problem until they needed
extraordinary measures and the Premier of the day, Premier Tobin, went to Ottawa
with cap in hand, and said, we have a crisis in health care in our Province. I
said, whoop-de-do! He finally knows that we have a crisis in health care in our
Province now, and finally admits it when he wants something to fix it.
Denial, denial, denial is the approach that is going on in there. We have
seen it today. Anyone who read the newspaper Saturday, executive director of the
health boards, the hospital boards in this Province indicated this government
does not have a plan. The Province does not have a plan to deal with health
care; $1.4 billion in expenditures, a growing cost, and they do not have a plan,
I have indicated. Can you imagine? They have no plan on how we want to bring
this Province forward.
AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about your plan.
MR. SULLIVAN: Don't you worry about our plan. You ask the Premier of
the Province to call an election and he will get a plan so fast it will knock
him flat down on his back, I tell you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: You tell him to call it and you will see a plan.
Can you imagine? That Premier sat in this House as a part of government since
1989 and he has sat in a Cabinet which made decisions over the downturn of our
economy. For the first several years, we managed decline. We did not try to
induce economic growth, we managed decline. Then we came to a new era in 1996,
and what did we do? We borrowed on our children's future for five years. That
was the plan. That is the plan that we have followed for the last five years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Manage decline and borrow on your future. No wonder we are
in the problem we are today. No wonder we are in the problem. No wonder the
minister in this House cannot stand up and answer a question when I asked a
simple, straightforward question: Your projection of 4.5 per cent on economic
growth, was that made before or after the IMF indicated that Canada's growth
is going to be 0.8 per cent next year, not 2.7 per cent, as earlier projected?
The minister did not answer. Whether she did not want to answer, she did not
want to admit, she had given us a statement that is not realistic, or she did
not know the answer. One of two. I do not know what other reasons there could
be.
I asked another simple question next, in which she stood today and answered
the questions, not the questions I asked at all, completely unrelated to what I
asked. The minister said in her statement, and we all have a copy of her
statement here, and we have a copy of this review, a copy of the Economic
Review, and this indicates that oil production next year will increase from 53
million barrels to 63 million barrels of oil. She said that growth is going to
be concentrated next year in oil. That is what she said.
Last year, it tells us, consumer spending and so on, growth in retails,
accounted for over half the growth in GDP, but next year she is saying it is
going to be in oil. So, I asked her: Does that mean that consumer growth,
spending and so on, is going to be down if it is going to be concentrated in
oil?. She could not answer, or did not answer, because she wanted to avoid it.
I asked her last Thursday: What price per barrel of oil did they build into
projections for next year? She did not answer. She did not answer it last
Thursday. On Friday we heard nothing. She got up and answered the questions
today in a statement. She said: I will table it. I will table the review at each
price. She said last Thursday: I will table the projections at each price level.
I do not have that, and it has not been tabled today. I am looking forward to
that. I would like to have a copy. I enjoy reading about economic matters, and
where we are, because it is a concern. We need to know what we are basing
projections on. We cannot go on a whim and a prayer, throw out a budget that
gets you by a year and gets you in trouble at the end of the year. We have been
too long putting our fingers in holes in the dike without fixing the dike, and
we have to start doing something about it.
Some of the things that the Advisory Council on the Economy - their job was
to monitor government economic policy and initiatives, and evaluate their
effectiveness and potential. I can tell you, their policy has not been very
effective. I do not know if the Advisory Council is telling the minister that
their policies are not very effective, and they are not growing the economy.
They must be, because I know some of the names of people who served and they are
successful people in this Province, and I am sure they had good advice to give
to the minister. I would wish that the good advice we get is heeded within the
department and by the minister. Sometime I wonder if the advice is getting
through. When you have the minister making a statement one day and the Premier
making a diametrically opposing statement another day, you wonder who is making
the economic decisions and the financial decisions in this Province today. I
think we have a major problem.
I thought for a moment the Board of Trade might be giving her some advice,
but I can see that they indicated in their release on November 21 - they went on
to say: We are in a situation where programs are simply not sustainable because
government does not have the flexibility to increase taxes or borrow more money.
When do you not get the flexibility?
Let's look at the history of what this Province has done. Since 1996 or
just slightly before, I think this was in 1993, when the former Minister of
Fisheries and the candidate for the leadership and Member for Port de Grave - I
think he was minister at the time in Works, Services and Transportation - stood
in this House in answer to questions: We got $55 million from the federal
government for the South Coast ferry service. We said that was enough money,
that was put aside basically, to operate that ferry service on the South Coast.
He said it was going to be put into a fund in perpetuity and the interest on
that, in the vicinity of $5 million a year, will run that ferry service, because
that is what the costs were. What did they do?
MR. BARRETT: What about the Roads for Rails Agreement?
MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to that in a few minutes. Just give me time, I
say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. One thing at a time.
We took the money and we spent it all over a period of a couple of years. It
was all gone and every year we are having to pay for that service. Then they
have come along with the Northern ferry service and they said: We will get a
chunk of money in lieu to lift the federal government from their responsibility
for delivering a ferry service to parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The concept was right, I agree, to put a good first-class highway across
Labrador to hopefully eliminate the ferry service. What was wrong? One hundred
and fifty million dollars too little. When it is finished, we will have a dirt
highway, a gravel highway, except Goose Bay to Cartwright will not be connected,
and we need a significant infusion of money. We still have to have a ferry
service going into numerous areas. I can tell you, if you look at it, I am sure
the cost of ferry service to Labrador has not diminished by very much at all,
only a fraction of the $350 million we got. We did not solve the problem and we
took a chunk of money. What happens when it is gone in another year or so? We
will still have to service that, and that is the cost that we built in by
relieving the federal government of their responsibility to deliver this
service. That is what we have done, and it is not the only area in which we have
done that.
MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I am delighted for a road in Labrador, I say to the Member
for Torngat Mountains. I am delighted! I would love to see a highway connecting
Labrador and I would like to see a link across The Straits that will bring us
closer together, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains..
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: That is what I would like to see. I think everyone in
Newfoundland and Labrador would like to see a closer tie between Newfoundland
and Labrador, geographically, physical ties whereby you can join Labrador, the
mainland portion, to the Island. I think it would be positive. I think the
spinoff effects for industry would be very positive.
AN HON. MEMBER: Just look at PEI.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, look at PEI.
The next point I want to make: In Term 29, in 1996, we saw they were having
problems, problems meeting budget expectations. Did they try to deal with them
by growing the economy? No. What else can we pull out of the hat? What else can
we rob from our children's future?
Well, we get $8 million a year forever, under Term 29, from the federal
government, I think negotiated right back to John Diefenbaker's time. What
happened? Eight million a year.
MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, whatever happened, it didn't work. There was a rule
he made, that it could not be done. This was a guarantee.
MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct. I agree. What did this government do of
which you sat as a member? I am not sure but you sat in the Premier's office
at the time, I say to the Minister of Works Services and Transportation, as
Parliamentary Assistant.
What did we do? We said to the federal government and Paul Martin, Finance
Minister, Premier Tobin at the time said: Give us twenty years' money upfront,
give us $160 million. The federal government: Oh, no, you are not getting $160
million, because if we give it to you upfront we have carrying charges and
things on that. We will give you $130 million upfront. So, they gave us $130
million upfront for twenty years. In1996 we were starting, and for the next
seventeen years. It was used in three years and plugged into the Budget here. So
after 1999, where are we? We are missing that $8 million every year in the
Budget, the money is gone and we do not get any for seventeen years after. That
is what happened. If that is not borrowing on your children's future, as in
other areas, what is it doing?
AN HON. MEMBER: Why did we pay the penalty.
MR. SULLIVAN: Basically, the penalty was we got $30 million less over the
period of time. Basically that was the penalty we served, because they gave us
$30 million less than we would have gotten if we had taken it on an annual
basis.
Then we stood in this House and we said everybody would like to see lower
taxes. We would like to see lower taxes in income tax because we think it
stimulates the economy. We would like to see lower payroll taxes. That is a
burden and that is an issue I will get to in another bill. I will get to this in
another bill where they are changing the payroll tax now. They gave us a
$500,000 exemption in the March Budget and now they are rolling it back in
another bill before this House which I will leave for that time. I want to say
that basically, as critic on it, my time is pretty extensive in responding here.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to that in a minute. One thing at a time.
We talked about retail sales tax and we said, when this government went to a
harmonized sales tax we were told that, look, we have to start somewhere, we are
going to bring all the provinces onside. We are going to bring New Brunswick
onside, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and other provinces across the
country. What provinces came onside? New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Thats it.
Where did all the jobs go? Where is the centre for dealing with the HST? Prince
Edward Island, the province that did not participate, got the jobs and we let it
go. What happened? Our revenues were over $100 million less, and they stood in
this House, the Premier and the minister, and said - and I happened to be Leader
of the Opposition at the time and I said: the reduction will not -
MR. BARRETT: Do you want to cut out the tax for business?
MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Works Services and Transportation: You are
on a different wavelength because I am not talking about that at all. I am on a
different topic. I will get to your topic, if time permits. If I run out the
hour of time that I have, I will do it another time.
Basically, we have talked about retail sales tax. I said: You will never get
it back in revenues . They said: Oh, the economy will grow, and in two or three
years we will get it all back, but we did not get it back. A lower tax is
positive. I agree it is positive, and we did not expect it. Is it positive to
reduce taxes? I agree it is positive to reduce taxes because history has proven
time and time again that reduction in taxes -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am getting to that point.
I have indicated that retail sales tax replaced with HST - there are only two
other provinces. The whole country participated. It would have been better for
the economy in Canada as a whole to have a harmonization of all provinces. It
did not happen, it just did not happen. With regard to jobs, Prince Edward
Island was the big beneficiary and they did not participate in this program.
Now, we have looked at numerous areas where we have taken money in the
short-term to fix a hole. Sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, there are prices you are
going to have to pay for shortchanging yourself in the future. The chicken have
come home to roost now, because we are into a situation where we have built a
major deficit in our Province and we have gone so far out on the limb that we
cannot get back in. That has been very significant.
We have seen this government's very poor economic policy. We have seen very
poor planning. Last year, and what they did in the Budget this year too - do not
worry about future budgets, lets get through this one. That short-term thing is
going to cost, because this year in our budget - we are using in this fiscal
year, right now, $196.8 million in deferred revenue from last year. Some of it
was carried from the previous year and so on, but in last year's Budget they
carried over $196.8 million, because if we had to show that, we would have shown
a big surplus. They did not want to do that. They wanted to show a different
situation and they carried it into this year, and now this year we have $196.8
million that we are not going to have next year.
The minister said there is an $80 million deficit right now. We have $90
million when the next year of public sector wages kick in. That is another $90
million. Add all that up and we have almost $370 million. I understand there are
cost-cutting initiatives going on in departments all over now, because they are
having a job to stay within the budgeted amount here. So we are seeing $400
million. The minister on public airwaves indicated: Yes, it is, certainly. When
they asked her if that $400 million I referred to was right, she agreed. She
agreed in a conversation with Jim Brown. So she realizes we have a big problem.
They should have realized and they should have listened, or they should have
taken advice from somebody that would have prevented us from getting into this
problem in the first place, because nothing beats proper fiscal planning for a
government. When you are in government, you should do it, it is very important.
We do not have to see a need every four and five years, everybody up in a big
fuss. We have to have a program review. Look, if we were carrying out the
mandates of properly administering and running efficient departments, we would
not have to have a major program review every so many years. We would be doing a
on-going review every single year on efficiency and so on of public services,
and proper utilization of the limited resources in times that we have available
to us. That should not have to happen, I might add.
On top of this almost $400 million I referred to, we have other costs that
haven't been looked at. I say to the minister: When this government introduced
year one of the tax cuts and year two of the income tax cuts, this government
went from $545,057,000 in revenues under income tax to $620,900,000. An increase
of $65 million in income tax went into the coffers of this Province in the tax
cuts than went in before.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is because we grew the economy.
MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly! Because we grew the economy, someone said. That is
exactly it. Because when you reduce taxes, you lift the burdens, you encourage
jobs and growth, you grow the economy, and that is what we are talking about. I
hope they now get the message, because they did not get it before. That is the
exactly the reason, and the thing I have been saying. You cannot put a damper on
consumer spending and growing the economy by negative - we have stagflation.
This minister is presiding over stagflation in our economy. That is basically
what is happening.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is stagflation. It is a common economic term. I say,
that is what is happening here. We cannot be going on this path continuously,
fixing a hole here and fixing a hole there. We have to have a particular plan.
Now, that $400 million deficit she is talking about, and that she admits on
the public airwaves, Mr. Speaker, that she agrees with me on, I say it is worse
than that. We haven't even talked. What she has tried to do is, she has tried
to tell us that the health boards in this Province, the community health boards
and institutional boards, are not a part of our financial statements, we do not
count their deficits. That is wrong. We fund health care boards. The Minister of
Health and Community Services appoints members to those boards. The minister,
technically, can hand-pick every member who sits on a health care board in this
Province. The minister approves everything, and funds them; and then to tell us
that they are not part of our Province's finances.
Right now, health care boards, institutional boards, have told government
that the $50 million we got this year, that the Minister of Health and Community
Services talks about, is money to pay for services that we got last year. That
is to pay for services we had last year, not this year. When you look at it now,
health care boards, institutional boards, are telling government: We cannot
operate without $18 million more. Community health care boards are between $6
million and $7 million. That is $24 million to $25 million that they need, over
and above what they were given, to be able to give the same level of service.
The department came back and said: Bring in the people with the knives and
the axes and start cutting. Come back to us and show us the plan as to how you
are going to recoup that.
They came back to government and one corporation here, the Health Care
Corporation of St. John's, said: We cannot find it. There is about $6 million
of that we just cannot find.
Basically what they said was - Mr. Peddle, who is executive director - here
are the options we have. You tell us where you want to cut, what programs and
what services you want to cut, and what layoffs.
Just to get $1.8 billion, there are forty-three layoffs in health care. How
do you get $6 million more? Basically, we have an overrun this year. Even if
they reach the knife cutting this year with dozens if not hundreds of job
layoffs, we are still not going to meet their expectation of recovering that
twenty-four. On top of that, there are deficits from the past years they have
not dealt with. There is $80 million of that accumulated over the past few
years, on top of that. That is not counted on our Province's debt. They do not
count that. In fact, what are they starting to do now? Here is a very serious
problem. They are being told, I understand, they are starting to convert some of
that deficit and refinance it as long-term debt. What does that do to you?
Look at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, which is already
financed $100-some million on the Janeway, and the changes with the closure of
the Grace and renovations at St. Clare's and the Health Sciences Complex to
accommodate it. They are going to refinance. What do you do when you refinance,
if you have to refinance $10 million, for example? You have to pay the principle
back, you have to pay interest on that, so that is less interest coming out of
your operation and that gives you less for services next year, and we are into a
never-ending vicious cycle of less disposable money to be able to do the job.
That is what is happening here. You are putting off on the backs of your
children what we should be facing up to as responsible men and women today, and
not transferring a debt to the future because the future is heavily enough
indebted in our Province. God help us, we are approaching close to almost $10
billion, $8.5 billion in direct public debt in the Province. They are not facing
up to the debts. We have to.
I am not saying that we have to eliminate the debt, because if our economy
grows and our GDP grows, the debt becomes less significant if you can hold the
debt in line. If you have a debt of $8.5 billion today, in twenty years' time
it is less significant and therefore you have command of it, so it is basically
the percentage: your debt in comparison to your GDP, as a percentage of GDP.
In fact, if you look at some other countries of the world, Canada's GDP per
capita was 2.5 that of Ireland. It used to be two-and-a-half times the GDP per
capita of Ireland. Today, Ireland's per capita GDP is greater than Canada. Can
you imagine? What a tremendous turnaround! How did they do it? They were told,
if you cut taxes, we are going to lose revenues. Young people were leaving to go
to Canada and elsewhere to get jobs. Today, they are coming back because they
dealt with it. Taxation is one thing, and education is another aspect of theirs,
but I will deal with taxation today.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I am talking about taxation generally, yes. There are other
issues of taxation. We could get into corporate and different types of taxes. I
am talking about general taxation, the tax burden, because if there is a burden
on a corporation, it is a cost to a corporation. If it is a burden on an
individual...
Consumer spending is obviously very much tied to personal disposable income.
That is basically what it is tied to, and personal taxes have a greater impact
on taxes in that particular area than businesses; but I will add, while we are
on the business end of it, that payroll tax, for example, is a tax on jobs. It
is as simple as that. Can we afford not to have it? Can we afford to have it?
These arguments can go on and on, but payroll tax is a burden.
We have moved and we have been calling for, and government has responded,
making exempt over $100,000 up to $500,000, and what did they do? They sneaked a
little bill in this House - I know you do not want to use the word sneak, but
they put a bill in this House, you can use what term you want - and they have a
bill in now that says we are going to roll back that $500,000 of exempted income
now to $475,000 this year. It is another regressive step.
There is a bill before this House, the Minister of Finance should be aware,
under the minister's heading. I will just find that bill for her, in case she
does not know what I am talking about, and I will give her the bill number. It
is Bill 28, I say to the minister, in case the minister is wondering. In Bill
28, here is what it says in the Explanatory Note provided under the minister's
signature, "This Bill would amend the Health and Post-Secondary Education
Tax Act to increase the remuneration threshold above which tax is imposed to
$500,000. For the balance of the 2001 taxation year the threshold would be
$475,000."
In your backgrounders to your notes in the Budget - I went back and reviewed
them - it is indicated that the threshold is going to be $500,000. This is not
legislation stemming to implement a budget; this is a change in your budget
figure that you gave. Some of the revenue that you gave in March, you are taking
back in November. That is what that is. That is basically what it is. If the
minister is not aware of it, she should get familiar with it very soon because
she will soon be called to introduce it here in this particular House.
We have looked at numerous particular areas of finance and what we have to do
- I was reading this article, this release that came out, and the president of
the St. John's Board of Trade - it is something we have been saying over and
over again - said, "Historically, governments of this Province, by
continual deficit spending have accumulated debt, which is now crippling the
ability to respond to current program needs." Because you have, in other
words, put yourself in a corner, you have put yourself up against the wall, you
have taken away your manoeuverability in times to be able to deliver the
programs we want to see delivered. "The spend now and pay later'
philosophy of passing the financial burden on to future generations has caught
up with us. The future is here and we must deal with the issues by cutting costs
now. Unfortunately, the timing for this type of policy directive from government
is very poor".
In other words, you have to deal with a problem, but there is a better way.
Not having to deal with a problem is by proper planning to eliminate or to
lessen the magnitude of that problem, and that is called proper planning, having
a plan to deal with it. Do not budget on the optimistic side. I still say to the
minister that I think she is budgeting on the optimistic side and we could be
back here with a poor mouth statement in February or March again, telling us:
Oh, look. We have underestimated the effect of September 11. We did not think it
was going to impact as much. The Premier said it was going to have no impact. We
underestimated the slowdown because the U.S. economy to the Canadian economy,
there is a lag quarter into the Canadian economy and there is a further lag into
the Newfoundland economy. When it starts to rebound again, the U.S. economy
picks up the lag, it is slower in kicking in, and if it kicks in over all, even
in the second quarter of next year in the U.S., it will be further down the line
before we start to reap the benefits of it. That happens. That happens with the
giant U.S., with ten times the Canadian economy and our Newfoundland economy.
While we are removed, geographically, we are depending very much on the export
commodities in the United States and there is a lot of dependence on the world
economy.
There is no economy in a global market today untouched, parochial in a view,
and isolated from impacts. They are there because we are dealing with
international trade today. We cannot close ourselves in and think that we are
not touched by it.
The Premier should go back to his council and get some advice on these
particular issues because he certainly has not articulated that to the public
and put any confidence in consumers in this Province to encourage them to spend.
That has to happen.
People have said that historically when you give the rich a tax break, they
hoard it up and they keep it. It has not proven correct. It has proven that they
increase spending, that they are more liberal in their spending habits, they
spend more money, they create more jobs because, when you loosen the purse
strings, you increase the spending. It is an extra job in that department store,
it is another ten in another store, it is three more down the road. To the small
grocery store out in the community, it is one extra employee. All of these add
up, all of these people pay taxes, all of these people are less of a burden then
on certain programs, certain social programs of our Province, because they have
an income and they have an insurance plan. By the way, that is another area. If
there are more people working, there are more people with insurance plans.
Over 30 per cent of health care today is privately paid for. It was only 25
per cent back in the 1980s. We are moving into a health care system now that is
almost one-third privately funded. We are talking about, and I read today, the
biggest, I guess, impediment to getting a publicly-funded system is that the
principles of our Canadian health system.
Most people are fairly familiar with them. For anybody who is not uniquely
familiar, comprehensiveness is one of the ones now that is being discussed on a
national level; we have a universality of that program, all across this country
you should be able to participate; support ability, the right for people in one
province to another to be able to avail of that system; public accountability of
founded. The Prime Minister and his government today are seriously threatening
that. They are seriously threatening that by not providing to the people of this
Province and not fulfilling their commitment to allow people under equalization
to be able to provide a comparable level of public services at comparable levels
of taxation.
In fact, I think it is a violation of our constitution. It was enshrined in
our constitution, and tying the hands of a province that has a large geography
and a small population, that is an issue that I think this government should be
standing up, taking on the federal government on constitutional grounds, taking
the government to court on constitutional grounds, that they are not providing
the comparable levels of service and the comparable levels of taxation in
compliance with our 1982 constitution. It is not there. They have kept
equalization on those grounds. They have kept equalization and they throw a
whole pot. What happens when the pot stays the same and disparities get greater?
You do not have the money to close the disparities, and disparities between us
and other provinces of this country are getting greater and greater and greater.
If you do not have a publicly-funded system today, you are in big trouble. If
you do not have a system there, people cannot afford it. I will use an example
of someone from my district who has to go to Toronto for a kidney transplant.
Basically, they went out and had a fund-raiser and bought tickets. They bought
tickets to go on Canada 3000. The family, the donor, the recipient - actually,
the donor was paid. The donor was paid through a government (inaudible). I will
not get into the specifics. The recipient had to buy the ticket, and the parents
and so on, to accompany that person. Canada 3000 went under. They lost it and
now they have to try to come up with the money on their own. There is nothing
that can be done. I have pursued it right to the corporate office of Air Canada.
There is nothing to help them. They have to go out and try to get the money to
get there.
Why isn't the recipient, why isn't the person who needs that, covered? If
our Province cannot provide a medical service, a kidney transplant that will
allow that person to live a normal life, shouldn't there be a program? If we
cannot provide a service, should there be a responsibility that we should be
able to provide an avenue to be able to get that service? That makes common
sense.
This family now has been in stress over the past couple of weeks, from phone
calls back and forth, speaking with myself. I know our health critic has spoken
with the family and they have gone through numerous efforts to try to be able to
have that go ahead on
schedule over the next couple of weeks.
This comes back to fundamental problems because we are not managing our
affairs, we are not freeing up dollars. Some of the things said by the Board of
Trade and others is that we have boxed ourselves into a corner, we have lessened
our ability to provide programs to people in our Province. Proper planning
allows you to look at your priorities in programming; it allows you to deliver
these basic programs. We are into a debate over what is funded by private and
what should be medically insured services that are covered under our public
services. We are getting into a big array of services in our Province that might
be covered in one province and not in another. We are getting down to what is
discretionary, what is essential. There is a whole argument that has been going
on, on this particular issue.
I am going to get to a conclusion in my comments on this bill. It is not what
legislation is; it is what you do with the legislation you have. If you have a
committee in place to advise government, if they are going to advise government
on the economy, identify major economic issues out there, report to the Cabinet
through the Premier of this Province, what is wrong with our economy? Is a
committee that is appointed by the Premier going to report back? Is the Premier
going to take advice? If he does not like the advice, he does not have to take
it. He can compile a committee that will give him the advice he wants. I think
what we need is advice, or we need people in the position who are going to heed
good economic advice and get this Province on the road to recovery, and stop
thinking short term, short-sightedness, and look at the overall direction we are
going to go in the long term, and get this Province on the road to recovery, and
do not do it by robbing our children's future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I know the Minister of Finance is anxious to wind up debate.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Oh, good. I have a few things to say about economic advice, I
guess. I am going to talk about in general, because this government and I
suppose the predecesso