Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 16 April 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 8)
2002-04-16
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 16, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 8
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to
the gallery today twenty Grade 9 students from Leary's Brook School in the
District of St. John's North. They are accompanied by teacher, Carolyn Stacey,
chaperone, Rick Canning, and bus driver, Don Gough.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the nominees and
winners of the 2002 Newfoundland and Labrador Book Awards, which were presented
by the Patron of the Awards, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, on April 11.
Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Book Awards were first presented
in 1997 and are administered by the Writers' Alliance of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The Bennington Gate Fiction Award winner was Ed Kavanaugh for The
Confessions of Nipper Mooney , published by Killick Press, while the Bruneau
Family Children's Literature Award winner was Janet MacNaughton for The
Secret Under My Skin , published by Harper Collins publishers.
Finalists for the fiction award included Latitudes of Melt by Joan
Clark and The Topography of Love by Bernice Morgan, while finalists for
the children's literature award included Castles in The Sea by Larry
Jackson; Kevin Major for Eh? To Zed: A Canadian AbeCedarium ; and The
Dog Next Year by Carmelita McGrath.
As we celebrate the accomplishments of these local authors, I want to commend
the Writers' Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador for their efforts in
promoting our Province's finest literary talent and urge all Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians to experience these fine works.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise to congratulate the Town of Bird Cove of twenty-five years of
incorporation. On Saturday, I had the opportunity to attend a celebration in the
community.
There have been many noteworthy changes in Bird Cove in the past quarter-
century, including the installation of new water and sewer lines, and a Tidy
Towns Nomination.
The Town of Bird Cove also took the initiative to create jobs for residents
of the community after the cod moratorium devastated both the local and regional
economy.
I applaud all members of the council on the active and vocal manner in which
they persistently approached government to bring promised jobs to fruition.
The Town of Bird Cove is a good example of a rural community that has faced
adversity and is finding innovative ways to move forward.
It is evident that residents take a genuine concern in the quality of life,
not only for themselves, but for their neighbours and that is a great
inspiration for all communities.
Although many feel volunteerism is a thankless job, the spirt of rural
Newfoundland and Labrador perseveres, and residents of communities such as Bird
Cove continue to dedicate their time and energy to improving life in their local
areas.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank councillors, past and present,
for their most valuable service and commitment to the Town of Bird Cove.
Again, I congratulate the Town of Bird Cove on twenty-five years of
incorporation.
Thank you.
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.
Mr. Speaker, Strait Talk: Clear Language News in the Labrador
Straits is a community newspaper published once a month by Partners in
Learning, a regional literacy group. This project is funded by the Canadian
Rural Partnerships Program, the National Literacy Secretariate and the
International Grenfell Association. Local partners include the Labrador Straits
Development Corporation, the SLDA, and Smart Labrador, amongst other
municipalities and development groups.
The purpose behind this paper is to encourage and value literacy practices in
the community and family. Strait Talk values and displays the wide
variety of literacy practices in the local area, including: histories,
expressions of opinions, recipes, stories, and traditional medicine.
Strait Talk is an important communication vehicle. It allows development
groups, public health groups, government agencies and the local community to
provide information in a clear language format.
Mr. Speaker, recently Partners in Learning were asked to exhibit Strait
Talk at a National Rural Conference to demonstrate how this organization has
addressed the issues of literacy and communication in rural areas of our
country.
I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating those
involved in making Strait Talk such a huge success.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday morning I had the opportunity to attend an awards ceremony at St.
Catherine's Academy on Salmonier Line. Every couple of months the school gets
together and presents awards to their students. The awards that were presented
yesterday under art, environmental awards, awards to the cadet group, awards for
poetry, math and most of all, basketball under the sports. It was a true
community effort put forward by parents, teachers, staff, coaches, and everybody
involved in St. Catherine's Academy.
St. Catherine's Academy's moto is Pursuing Excellence From Here To
Eternity. There is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, that they pursue excellence
in everything they do. It is a credit to the many people who are involved at St.
Catherine's Academy, and the opportunity yesterday was to thank these people
involved and to spread the excellence around. They did so in fine (inaudible)
yesterday.
I want to congratulate St. Catherine's Academy and Mr. Gary Corbett,
Principal of St. Catherine's Academy, for a job well done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, from 1895 until 1966 over 78 million tons of ore
was shipped from the world's largest submarine iron ore mine on Bell Island.
The deposit contains an estimated 3.5 billion tons of iron ore and the area of
occurrence is approximately 70 square miles, with only 10 square miles having
been mined during its operation.
A group of dedicated volunteers on Bell Island have formed a Heritage Society
and are offering tours of this historic underground iron ore mine and operating
a museum as well. Last year over 15,000 people toured the mine on Bell Island
and that was a 20 per cent increase over the year before.
The mine has regular tour hours and they operate from 11:00 a.m. until 7:00
p.m. daily, from June to September. However, group tours are available by
appointment at any time during the year.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the people of Bell Island, and in particular
Mr. Pat Craig, with the IAS Committee, and Gordon Skanes, known as Gordie, who
is the Chair of the Heritage Society on Bell Island, for making this part of
their unique history accessible to interested individuals and groups.
I would encourage all in the House of Assembly, and indeed across the
Province, to visit Bell Island this summer and enjoy a tour of the iron ore
mine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to rise today and inform the House of a special
event that took place in Labrador West during the Easter break.
Mr. Speaker, the senior citizens of Labrador West took a trip that people
half their age would probably hesitate to go on. On April 3 they went on an
overnight excursion to the Miron River Hunting and Fishing Lodge. This may not
seem like a big deal until you realize it is located about 100 kilometers in the
wildness from towns.
The Iron Ore Company of Canada provided a bus to take them from town to the
Ashuanipi River on Wednesday morning. We were waiting there to take them to the
Miron River in a completely restored, twelve passenger 1957 Bombardier
snowmobile owned by Phil Brake of Labrador City. In the hour and half it took to
get to the lodge they had their accordion going and a sing along taking place.
When they arrived at the Miron there was a pot of moose soup waiting for
them. We played cards with them all afternoon, had a big roast of caribou and
Jiggs' dinner for the evening meal, following which the fun began.
With the accordion going and the fiddle playing, they played, sang and danced
the night away. It was indeed a great time for all of them. The next morning it
was aboard the snowmobile again and down the trail to the bus.
Mr. Speaker, what makes this story so amazing is the fact that all the
seniors are women. Five of them are over the age of eighty. For some of them, it
was the first time in their lives on ski-doos.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read their names into the record of Hansard:
Mrs. Louise Mouland, Mrs. Daisy Pelly, Mrs. Myrtle St. Croix, Mrs. Pearl Hicks,
Mrs. Myrtle King, Miss Edna Loder, Loder, Mrs. Ella Hoffe, who was accompanied
by her daughter Glynis Hynes.
Mr. Speaker, for making this event happen, I would like to thank George Pardy
of the Miron River Outfitting Lodge and his wife Mimi, Phil and Cynthia Brake,
Nelson and Marjorie Dumaresque, for all their help, and to Cliff Chambers for
providing his fiddle talents.
It was a trip the seniors who went will never forget, and listening to their
stories -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: - other seniors cannot wait until their turn next year.
Mr. Speaker when the trip began I asked Mrs. Mouland if she was afraid to go
that far on a snowmobile and her response was, "Randy, when you get my age
you're not afraid of nothing or no one."
Thank you.
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.
My questions today are for the Minister of Fisheries.
Mr. Speaker, foreign fishing fleets continue to destroy fish stocks on the
Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and in the past two years the number of
documented infractions in the NAFO area have increased dramatically. They are
ignoring the rules of their own international regulatory body and are ignoring
Canada's declaration of protective custody over some of these stocks, and they
are getting away with it. Unfortunately, NAFO was toothless. Canada, our
country, is detached and indifferent. It just cannot be bothered. Given this
government's silence, I believe that they feel the same.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries, what action his
government has taken to force the federal government to pay attention to this
issue. For example, has the minister and his government asked the Prime Minister
to discuss these matters with the European press or European leaders on its
current tour of leading capitals, or has the minister and his government asked
the Minister of Foreign Affairs to take this issue up with the United Nations?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously the member opposite has been out of town for the last few weeks
because this government has not been silent on the issue of foreign overfishing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in fact, it was only here three weeks ago that the
Minister of Finance and Treasury Board gave $100,000 to the Department of
Fisheries to carry out that campaign. We have been working with FANL, the
processors in the Province, and the union, so that we could get a conjoint
effort together to work on this issue. I have spoken on numerous occasions with
the federal minister. I brought it to the attention of the Atlantic Fisheries
Ministers back two weeks ago in P.E.I.
In the meeting on Thursday with FANL and the union, they suggested that the
Opposition parties in the House stand behind us, and we act with one unified
voice. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition is more interested in scoring
cheap political points than he is with the actual issue, which is one that is
very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: It must be the best kept secret in the Province, Mr.
Speaker, (inaudible) about cheap political points. This is about important
issues to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, just this weekend we found out about a Russian
trawler that was loaded with baby redfish, less than the size of my hand, caught
on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks - also cod caught, as well, other
endangered groundfish species - all of it legal because NAFO does not have any
quota or size restrictions on the fish. Our own fishermen, our own Newfoundland
and Labrador fishermen, on the other hand -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary.
MR. WILLIAMS: - cannot take undersized redfish because they want to be
responsible. They want the fish to grow. They want the fish to reproduce. They
want to build an industry.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: Why is he, in
particular, why has this Premier, why has his government, been so quiet while
foreign fleets destroy any chance of recovery in that fishery? And why is he so
happen time and time and time again?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we realize that it has been a very serious issue,
the issue of foreign overfishing. Maybe one of the past leaders that they had
there, the Member from Lewisporte, when he was the Minister of Fisheries, he
also fought this issue in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. We have been doing it since 1989.
I can remember going with Mr. Carter, when he was the Minister of Fisheries,
to Ottawa and discussing it with then Minister of Fisheries for Canada, John
Crosbie, and we said: Mr. Crosbie, send out the gunboats.
He laughed at us. He actually laughed us. He used to look at Walter Carter
and say: Wally, go home boy, you are talking about starting a third world war.
Don't be so foolish. He said: Even if I wanted to do it, I could not get it
through our External Affairs Minister. He said: Joe Clarke, who is now the
leader of the party, said he would never look at it. So, he said, go home; there
is nothing we can do about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: As for the silence, Mr. Speaker, as for the silence, again, I
would like to know where the hon. member across the floor has been, because this
government has not been silent. In fact, the only thing that I have heard from
him was a one-liner on Friday afternoon after he returned to the Province saying
that this government and the one in Ottawa was inept when it came to foreign
overfishing. I can tell you that we are and we have and we will continue to
fight against what is happening on the Nose and the Tail of our Grand Banks and
the Flemish Cap, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What did the late Herb Dhaliwal do for this Province? Gave away 1,500 off to
Prince Edward Island. What about Brian Tobin? What did Brian Tobin do? At the
end of the day we ended up giving more fish to the Spaniards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: What about George Baker who got muzzled after they bought
him off? What happened to him?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: Lets not get into politics here, baby, or I tell you, we
will go all the way with it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Do you know what we should do, Mr. Speaker? Maybe we should
strap some softwood lumber to the backs of these fish, and then we would get
some attention.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WILLIAMS: I thought you would like those, Eddie.
Mr. Speaker, the livelihood -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WILLIAMS: A very serious matter. A very, very serious matter.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the livelihood of tens of thousands of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -
MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).
MR. WILLIAMS: It is a very serious matter, Percy. I mean, the Minister of
Transportation. I wouldn't mind if he would just listen while I ask my
question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the livelihood of tens of thousands of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and indeed their families, their communities,
and their homes are in jeopardy, because of Canada's reluctance and because of
this government's reluctance to protect our important fish stocks from foreign
overfishing.
My question is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the Minister of
Fisheries: What is he going to do about it? When are you going to show some
outrage? When is he going to show some concern? When is he going to show some
interest? Or is he just like the Premier, he just simply isn't interested when
it comes to fish?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I don't need to sit here, for the hon. member across the floor
to tell me about the impact foreign overfishing has had on this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: I represent a district, Twillingate & Fogo, in the House of
Assembly, Mr. Speaker, that is dependent, 100 per cent, on the fishery. I know
what it is like to have to see houses boarded up, plants closed and communities
dying. I also know what it is like on the South Coast of our Province where, in
Burgeo today, the plant still remains idle since 1992, in plants like Ramea.
What I am asking the hon. members opposite to do is come on side with us, the
union and FANL, along with the NDP in this Province, to conjointly stage a
protest against what is happening outside of our 200-mile limit.
Mr. Speaker, we have been working on this since 1989, but we intend to do it
in a co-ordinated way with the union, with FANL, and I am sure the Leader of the
NDP will come on side. Like I said earlier, this issue is far too serious to
play cheap politics with. As long as we stand in this House of Assembly and
fight with each other, nobody else in this country is going to listen to us.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to now conclude his answer.
MR. REID: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member opposite talk to
his Tory cousins in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and P.E.I., and tell them what
impact foreign overfishing is having on the economy of this Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to now conclude his answer.
MR. REID: - because when I brought it up at the Ministers' Conference
in P.E.I. two weeks ago, not one of them spoke to it, Mr. Speaker, not one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture that there has been more out of the MPs in Nova Scotia on this issue
than there has been out of this government on this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture also.
The report of the Independent Panel on Access Criteria was released recently.
The report singles out the waters off this Province as the only waters where
adjacency would not be the guiding principle in allocating fish.
Mr. Speaker, this flies in the face of our stand in the international
community, that we should have jurisdiction over the area adjacent to us outside
the 200-mile limit. Will the minister ask his federal counterpart how he expects
foreign nations to agree with our desire to manage the adjacent Continental
Shelf outside 200 if the federal government does not support adjacency inside
200?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The people of this Province know where we stand with regard to the Panel on
Access Criteria that the hon. member mentioned just then.
Mr. Speaker, again, along with the union and FANL and this government, we
presented our position to the federal government. Our position was that in order
to have - the three main principles for access to fish off our Province were:
adjacency, historical dependence, and economic viability.
Mr. Speaker, we believe first and foremost that the adjacency principle is
the most important principle for our Province and we will continue to fight - it
is only a report; the minister has not accepted it yet - we will continue to
fight, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the adjacency principle is the key principle
in allocating fish stocks off our coast.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &
White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, adjacency has not been the guiding principle in the past. Mr.
Speaker, this report identifies Aboriginal rights and interpersonal and
interregional equity as principles that take priority over adjacency and
historical dependance in allocating fish.
Mr. Speaker, is the minister concerned that acceptance of this could see
upwards of 50 million pounds of Northern shrimp off this Province set up as the
bargaining chip to be used by the federal government to settle allocation
disputes with Aboriginal communities in the Maritimes, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of what that means for the Province. I am also
well aware that if we lose that adjacency principle we could very well lose
access to some of the fish stocks that are very important to this Province. But
again, Mr. Speaker, I ask the members opposite to come on side with us to fight
the federal government on this rather than fighting ourselves while the people
in the rest of Canada sit back uninterested or laugh at us.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits
& White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see that he has invited us because he said that it was last week
or the week before that they had this debate, so finally he is getting around to
inviting us to participate.
Mr. Speaker, we do support the principle of adjacency and the Province's
stand on it, but we want to hear more vocal on this. This report, Mr. Speaker,
is potentially the most dangerous report relating to fisheries allocations to
come out of Ottawa in a very long time. It has been almost two weeks since this
report came out, yet all we see from the minister is a press release expressing
disappointment.
Will the minister condemn this report, Mr. Speaker, stand up to the federal
minister and tell him that we are sick of his P.E.I. shrimp deals, we are sick
of the reports and we want nothing less than our rightful access to the fish and
the waters that we brought into this country in 1949?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said earlier, we are working with the union and we are working with FANL.
We are working with everyone in the industry because the union and FANL, and
every fisherman and every fisherwoman in this Province, every plant worker,
knows how important the adjacency principle is to the fishery in this Province.
Everyone knows that, Mr. Speaker. If we have not done anything - I gave a
presentation on this exact FANL report two weeks ago to the Atlantic ministers
in P.E.I. I have written Mr. Thibault . I have called him personally and have
spoken with him. I met on Thursday past with FANL and the union again, Mr.
Speaker, so that we can go forward with a unified attack or unified approach to
this to the federal government. Again, I would ask the members opposite to join
with us in this Province, rather attack us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Since the Legislature opened for the spring sitting I have
been pursuing questions related to consultants and the hiring of consultants by
various departments in government. Mr. Speaker, the list I have here today reads
like a who's who of friends of the Liberal Government. The old adage: he
who pays the piper calls the tune' holds true in this sense.
Let me ask the minister responsible, the Minister of Industry and Rural
Development this question: Why was there no public tender, for example, for
Perry and Butland Communications, a contract which this company received in
excess of $100,000? Why wasn't it; no public tender called, no issuance of a
public tender? Like, for example, the consultant Paratus out of Winnipeg hired
to do a cultural study on the Province for $380,000. Why is it that you stand up
on your feet and claim to be so open and transparent, but when it comes to
rewarding your friends public tender is in the garbage and Liberal friends are
on the way through the front door?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I answered, in response to a question from the
Opposition House Leader yesterday concerning consultants guidelines, that I
would obtain them for him. That is in process. I have requested of the officials
of the department that he provide them so that we can table them here in the
House, along with all reports and consultant studies that have been requested in
regards to that.
I understand the guidelines actually fall under, and are governed by,
Treasury Board, and not particularly under this department, but those guidelines
apply to -
MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: Maybe if the members opposite, the Member for Bonavista
South, would give me the courtesy of responding. I would appreciate the courtesy
of being allowed to respond to your question. If it is important enough to ask,
I think it is important enough that the people of this Province deserve an
answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: In that regard, again, there are guidelines that are
established here. Consultancy reports are not subject to the Public Tender Act
but there are guidelines that are established, and to my knowledge those
guidelines have always been followed, regardless of what the study in the report
was. If there is anything to the contrary, it is certainly not a matter that I
am aware of.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if there are guidelines available twenty-four
hours later you would think the minister would table them in the House.
The only guideline that is in place for consultants in this Province is: Who
supports the governing party? That is the guideline that is required.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: For example, I would like to ask him this question. In
documents obtained under freedom of information request, SKD Consulting received
in excess of $34,000 from your department. What did SKD Consulting do for your
department? Why was there no contract? What was the report that was eventually
tabled or given to your department based upon that? Here is the question: Is
that particular consulting company still working for government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I mentioned again yesterday, and I will reconfirm here today, and it was -
as the Opposition House Leader states - less than twenty-four hours ago that he
made his request, not only for the guidelines -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: While I understand that the guidelines are not necessarily
secret information, anybody who wants the guidelines has access to the
guidelines, but the request yesterday was to provide to this hon. House a copy
of the guidelines plus a copy of any reports that have been issued by my
particular department. That is what I have undertaken to provide to this House.
That is what I will provide to this House. I do not think twenty-four hours to
compile that information is a particularly long time, but again, I give my
assurance to this House that as soon as the information is compiled it will be
tabled here in this House, and any questions that the Opposition have with
respect to any particular contract, we are certainly at liberty then. If you
give me notice of the particulars and details of any particular study that you
want to know about, I will certainly be more than welcome to provide this House,
and the people of this Province, with that information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to answer the questions.
The fact of the matter is that if guidelines are available in the department
right now they should be tabled in the House right now. The fact that they are
not, Mr. Speaker, is very telling.
Let me ask the Minister of Government Services this question: Was there a
public tender called for SKD Consulting which you issued from your department -
December, $5,700; January 19, 2002, $11,896 and on February 8, $8,310 - for a
total of $25,000 worth of work for three months? Was there a public tender
called from your department in paying this consultant? I do not believe there
was, but if there wasn't, why wasn't there? And, what is the nature of the
consulting work that the consultant is doing for your department?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no public tender call because it is
not required. The consultant was hired in accordance with established
regulations, to provide the services which he is now delivering. It is a
consultant who has a good reputation in this field; as a matter of fact, the
consultant who has been endorsed by the people on the other side, by their
employment of the consultant in the past.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I will allow the hon. member one more question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me make it clear. What is at stake here is the
principle that on one hand this government says they are the most open and
transparent government in Newfoundland's history, and on the other hand -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: - they go ahead and spend millions and millions of the
public's money without public tender. The consultant is not the issue. Your
blatant disregard for public finances -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question quickly.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: It is better than taking the public finances on your back,
I say to the Minister of Human Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of brevity, would the minister be
inclined, if I provided him a list of his department's own consultants, that
he take that tonight, do his homework and report back tomorrow on why this
entire list received - the consultants on this list have close associations to
your government and your government party, and why you called no public tender
for either one of those? Would you like a copy of that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment first and foremost that
I do not have all the intimate details of this matter under discussion. Nor do I
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: Again, if the Opposition House Leader wants the answer to
his question, I would expect he would have the courtesy to let me respond.
In the ten or twelve days that I have been here, I have determined a couple
of things. First of all, the staff at ITRD are very credible, very responsible,
very competent people who have done their level best to give me a level of
foundation and knowledge so that I can answer some of these questions, and they
have done a good job of that, but unfortunately we have only gotten to the tips
of the trees. The department is vast. The information is vast. I have no
difficulty with any question that the member opposite might wish to ask me to
provide him with the information. I readily admit that I do not have all of this
detail on the top of my head to give him. Now, any information that he wishes to
give to me, to have me review, by all means.
Again, openness and transparency works two ways. It is coming from this side,
and if he wishes to be open and transparent and give me information so that I
can check the facts out, I am more than welcome to have it, receive it, and have
it properly analyzed and then respond to him. Not a problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods concerning
the Newfoundland and Labrador School Milk Foundation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will begin again. My question is for the Minister of Forest Resources and
Agrifoods concerning the Newfoundland and Labrador School Milk Foundation.
Recently, two parents in Labrador West have set up a school lunch program. They
applied to the school milk program in the Province but were told that, due to
transportation restrictions, milk cannot be delivered to Labrador West from the
Province but they could get some brochures and other printed material.
As the minister knows, Mr. Speaker, the School Milk Foundation is a valuable
program that is promoting health and nutrition, encouraging our children to
drink more milk, and increasing the availability and the affordability of milk
for our students in the schools. As the government is a partner and provides
funding support for this program, I ask the minister: Why aren't school
children in Labrador West able to avail of this important program?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In answer to the hon. gentleman's question, this was an agreement brought
in, I think, in 1989-1990, initiated by government and the two processing firms
in the Province at the time, namely Brookfield Ice cream and Central Dairies, to
institute a school milk program in the Province. It has been a very successful
program, there is no question about that. It went from around 150,000 to 200,000
litres when it started in the schools and the consumption now is up to over
900,000; between 900,00 and 1 million litres per year in the schools in the
Province.
Transportation always has been a problem with regard to the Labrador part of
it, and other areas of the Province, when it started first. Just because it is
up to 900,000 or 1 million litres a day and consumption is up in the schools of
the Province, and the Province as a whole, it does not mean that it came
overnight. It went incrementally. Year after year after year it improved.
The Labrador situation is unique in the fact that it seems like the
transportation part of it cannot be overcome because you are even taking the
fresh milk market out of Quebec into Labrador West and Goose, and the Goose Bay
area. That is tied in with the UHT milk, which is ultra high temperature, being
put on the shelves down there.
Getting back to the initial question of the member, I can certainly talk to
the processors again to see what their thoughts are on doing something with
regard to that, and see if the transportation part of it - especially when you
take into consideration the milk costs in Quebec verses Newfoundland come into
play with that. I can certainly take that up with them.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister that, given the focus of this program is the students
and not the milk producers, even though we are thankful for their support, will
the minister commit that regardless of where the cow is located, regardless of
where that is, that the school children of Labrador West will be entitled to the
same subsidy from the government as students in the rest of this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WOODFORD: Right now I cannot honestly tell where the cow is located,
but I can pretty well assure you it is not out to pasture.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious problem, no question about that. I
realize that, not only with regard to consumption and what it has to do with
production and sales in the Province, it has to do with nutrients. It is a very
important thing to get into the schools because what happens is, kids start
drinking milk and they do not get into the carbonated beverages and so on. It is
a great program, no question.
Transportation is a factor, but getting back to where the cow is located, Mr.
Speaker. In Labrador it is coming on big time as an agricultural production. We
are looking at the Goose area now with regards to - as you know, in Labrador the
soils are very sandy, very susceptible to leaching, they can't hold the
nutrients. We are looking at the new production management techniques in that
area now with some farmers in the Goose Bay area -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. WOODFORD: - and there is a possibility we have even identified the
growing of barley and oats in that particular part of the Province. So, it might
come into being where there would be some animal production there, and probably
some small new production over the years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador
West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: That was very useful information, I say to the minister, but
I hope we don't have to wait for farms to take place in Labrador before school
children can get subsidized milk.
Again, I ask the minister: Will he commit, because the provincial government
pays money into this program, to the students of Labrador West that they will be
able to receive milk subsidized by this government the same as other students in
the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said from the outset, Mr. Speaker, I will take it upon myself to talk to
the producers and the Newfoundland Dairymen's Association to see what can be
done in that particular area - there is no question about that - to see what
kinds of changes have taken place over the last few years. I am familiar with
some of them, but there may be some others. I will talk to the processors and
see what it would cost to put milk into a place like Lab West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, when the House prorogued, we left two pieces of
legislation on the Order Paper, "An Act Respecting Environmental
Protection" and "An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water
Resources In The Province". We had agreed to give these bills the same
status when the House opened, now as it was then. This is what it looks like on
paper, Mr. Speaker. To do that, I will read the motion.
I give notice and by leave move, that notwithstanding the provisions of any
Standing Orders or practices of the House, the versions of the bills entitled,
"An Act Respecting Environmental Protection", Bill 1, and "An Act
Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources In The Province",
Bill 4, which were ready for consideration by the Committee of the Whole House
during the Third Session of the Forty-Fourth General Assembly, be deemed to have
been read a second time, referred to and reported from the Resource Standing
Committee of the House, and that the said bills be ordered to stand on the Order
Paper for consideration by this honourable House at the same stage, that is the
Committee of the Whole House, during this, the Fourth Session of the
Forty-Fourth General Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER: We have all heard the motion put forward by the hon. the
Government House Leader.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in Petition time to present yet another
petition from another area of my district in Harry's Harbour, Jackson's Cove
area, the Green Bay area, where they have another situation of deplorable road
in their area. This is one of the parts of the 900 kilometres of road still left
in the Island portion of the Province, not including the parts of the Province
in Labrador where there is still also a lot of gravel roads, Mr. Speaker.
In this particular case, this community did have some work done some years
ago. As a matter of fact, I do not know exactly, but I think it is somewhere
around fifteen years ago that it seen its last bit of pavement. That was in the
time of the Peckford Administration when they did start pavement in the
community and it started to work out, but there is still over fifteen kilometres
of gravel roads that is in a deplorable condition today. As I drive down that
road, especially now in the springtime, it is soften up, it is the worst of all.
The Member for The Straits refers to it as the winter pavement is gone now. We
see everything is melting and they are being reminded again that they still have
this much gravel road to drive over.
Parents continuously remind me that school children are getting on those
buses and travelling every single day. It is hard enough sometimes to encourage
your children to keep interested in school and so on, but when you have to get
up and face this every single morning - people in this part of the Province are
saying that they are sick and tired, day-after-day, of trying to encourage their
children to get on a school bus when they look at these conditions. Even in a
good car, if they could afford good vehicles, it is still an uncomfortable ride,
and day-after-day they have to put up with this. They are getting sick and tired
of it. The last thing they want to do - as one parent said to me, they have to
continuously go around with a petition, to get people to sign a petition so that
they can get this government to recognize finally that they need to put together
a plan; not every year to stand up with a small amount of money that is just not
addressing the problems in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They are being left
out again.
We need a plan that is going to finally address the real road crisis that is
in this Province that grows year-after-year. Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I do
not know how many times we have to repeat it, and some members have said to me:
Oh, you are presenting another petition on roads. Well, Mr. Speaker, I know, not
just on this side of the House but also on the other side of the House - I was
in Twillingate last weekend and people came up to me and talked about roads in
their area. This Province, from the west to the South Coast and the Northeast
Coast in Labrador, has a serious problem that is not being addressed. It has
been put aside. Every spring this government and this minister stands up with a
measly $18 million to $20 million when he knows full well that there are
somewhere near $300 million, at least, in requests from all around this
Province, from every member, on road work that desperately needs to be done.
Mr. Speaker, they are always asking us for solutions and policy. Well, we
believe there should be a long term policy, a plan that will address it, not
just year-to-year, but either a five year or a ten year plan, and we have to get
support now from the federal government so we can really address this.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Leave, just to conclude? So that the people in this district -
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. SHELLEY: So that these people do not have to do any more petitions
and people in Harry's Harbour, Jackson's Cove and Silverdale can finally
say: We are going to be able to send our children to school on a paved highway,
on something that is comfort, and something that is long overdue.
I support this petition, and I hope the government soon listens to these
people.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition as well, another road petition. It reads:
Petition to the House of Assembly. To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in
legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland;
WHEREAS the road on the Bonavista Peninsula from Route 235 through the
communities of Open Hall, Red Cliffe and Tickle Cove, is in such a deplorable
condition that it damages vehicles and creates great discomfort and safety
concerns for children on school buses; and
WHEREAS this road has not been upgraded since it was first paved more than
twenty-five years ago, despite serious deterioration;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to upgrade where necessary and re-pave the seven kilometers of road leading from
Route 235 through Open Hall, Red Cliffe, and Tickle Cove.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is another one of several petitions that I have presented
here for this particular
section of road. It is seven kilometers leading from
Route 235 out to Tickle Cove. The road is in a deplorable condition. I have had
the minister, I guess to his credit - although we have not seen much work, but
to his credit - I have had the minister down over that
section of road twice in
the last year. It is a
section of road, Mr. Speaker, that last year the people
in that particular area were promised that they would see two kilometers of that
road paved. They did not want, they did not expect, to get their seven
kilometers of road work done and they were happy and satisfied to see a start
made. They said: Okay, we will accept two kilometers this year, a couple of
kilometers next year, and within the next few years we will have our road paved.
They were not selfish people, saying that our road should get seven kilometers
this year and forget about everybody else.
Mr. Speaker, the minister went down and promised the people in Open Hall, Red
Cliffe and Tickle Cove that two kilometers of road would be paved. Then, all of
a sudden, the capital works budget was announced. What did they get, Mr.
Speaker? I will tell you what they got. They got 400 meters, less than half a
kilometer, of roadway upgraded and paved. Those people living in Open Hall, Red
Cliffe and Tickle Cove need and deserve a road to drive over, to allow their
school children to travel over, allow the seniors in the community to travel
over, and everybody else who lives in those three communities. They deserve a
section of road comparable to any other road that exist in this Province. They
pay the same price for taxes on gasoline, the same price to insure their
vehicles, the same price to register their vehicles, the same price for their
driver's licence, Mr. Speaker.
They come in here. A committee representing those three communities have
recently come in with me and met with the minister again to put forward their
plea to have this
section of roadway included in the capital works budget of
this coming year. We are still waiting with anticipation to see if we are going
to be successful, to have this road upgraded and paved. Mr. Speaker, the people
- the children, the school children in this community - travel down to King's
Cove to attend school and this, I would suggest, is probably the worst
section
of road that any bus travels over serving that particular school. It is in
deplorable condition. It needs to be upgraded. It has gotten to the point in
some cases, Mr. Speaker, that one side of your car is driving on paved road and
the other side is driving on gravel road because the edges, the sides of the
pavement, the wall of the road, has disappeared and what we have is a gravel
section -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - that extends almost in to the middle of that particular
roadway.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to make sure that this
section of roadway is
included in this year's capital works project budget so that the people in
this area can realize some road work.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again today in the House to present this petition on behalf of the
people in the Clarenville Area. I will just read from the petition, Mr. Speaker.
It says:
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced in its
2001-2002 Budget there would be a long-term care facility constructed in
Clarenville, and that the Department of Health and Community Services was given
$500,000 to commence the engineering and design work; and
WHEREAS in August, 2001, last year, the then acting Minister of Health and
Community Services further confirmed, in a letter to the Town of Clarenville,
that government was in fact committed to building forty-four long-term care beds
in Clarenville and that the design work and the consultants to do the design
work would be appointed by September, 2001.
Mr. Speaker, the petition suggests that the then acting Minister of Health
and Community Services last August made that commitment. The people of
Clarenville were somewhat delighted last week when they found that last year's
acting Minister of Health and Community Services is now the permanent Minister
of Health and Community Services.
They were really refreshed and reassured by that because they assume now
that, given the fact that he was the individual who last year put in writing a
commitment to have the consultants appointed by September, 2001, for sure now
that same person, that same minister, was now going to live up to his
commitment, live up to the word that he gave to the Mayor of Clarenville, live
up to what he put in writing last August, and in fact now, immediately, proceed
and appoint the consultants to start to do the design work.
Just a month ago, the former Minister of Health and Community Services made a
comment on CBC Radio , out of Gander, that government would in fact,
within a few months, be in a position to proceed and make that appointment. I am
asking now, the newly appointed Minister of Health and Community Services, to:
number one, reflect on and consider his commitment to the people of the
Clarenville Area of last year and follow through with that commitment. I would
also ask that the minister look at the commitment made by his former colleague,
the former Minister of Health and Community Services, when she said within a few
months. So, both now the former minister's few months is now here and should
be ready to make the appointment, and the current minister's commitment of
last year is some seven or eight months past. So, for sure by now, government
should be in a position to follow through with: number one, its commitment from
last year's budget; number two, the commitment last August from the then
acting minister, who is now the permanent minister, and follow through thirdly
with the commitment from the former minister.
Now, that sounds complicated, Mr. Speaker. It probably is, because the people
in Trinity North and the people in Bonavista South and the people in Terra Nova
and the people in Bellevue district have been talking about this issue for the
last fifteen years. This has been a major issue for the people of that area for
quite some time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to conclude?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would ask that the
minister, for once and for all, put this issue to bed. It has been a
long-standing issue for the people in that area, and it is about time that this
government acted on all its commitments and follow through and make that
appointment, that the engineering and design firm go ahead and start the design
work to construct a long-term care facility in Clarenville.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.
I, too, rise today to present a petition to this House. Like the Member for
Baie Verte and the Member for Bonavista South, it is a petition on roads. It is
a petition similar to the one that I presented here in this House last spring
from the residents of Conche and many people who also used the Conche road to
conduct their business, to travel from Roddickton and surrounding areas into
Conche, for teachers who teach in the schools there, wood truck drives,
transport truck drivers and the like who travel over twenty-six kilometers, Mr.
Speaker, of gravel road every day into and out of Conche.
It is a road, as I said last year, that I have pointed out to the Minister of
Transportation, the Member for Bellevue, that was built by logging contractors
primarily, a road that is basically no better than a woods road. There are woods
roads maintained by the Department of Forestry and Agrifoods in this Province
that are in better condition than the Conche highway, the Conche road. I cannot
call it a highway. The Conche road. It is in a deplorable condition.
I will read from the petition as it came from the people of Conche, and we
had to attach a prayer of the House to it:
We, the undersigned who use Conche road, feel that maintenance and repair of
our road is long overdue. With respect to the road conditions elsewhere in
Newfoundland, the road conditions we have to endure are deplorable. Therefore,
we insist that our road be better maintained and preferably paved.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is very telling, the last couple of words of this
petition. It says: ...and preferably paved. That just goes to point out that the
people of Conche, and the people who use the Conche road, are so fed up with the
road that they have to travel on, that the road is in such poor condition, that
right now they would be prepared to accept some upgrading to a Class A gravel
road.
Mr Speaker, the petition does not speak to the road conditions in Conche,
itself. I talked to a lady and gentleman in Conche yesterday who have to take
their vehicle to the garage some time in the next couple of days to get two
struts replaced because they are broke. Not that they are worn out, but they are
actually broke. That is because of the road conditions that they have to travel
over. There is a hole in a place called Sailor Jack's Hill, a hole bigger
around than a five-gallon bucket, that goes down through the road. That is an
extremely dangerous situation for people who travel over these roads every day.
The road, as I said, through Conche, just to travel from one end of the harbour
to the other, is a fifteen to twenty minute drive because of the condition of
the road. It is to the point where it is pointless, practically, to send a
grader out on the road.
Yesterday, the people of Conche and surrounding area -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. TAYLOR: By leave, just to conclude?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The people of Conche and surrounding areas, their frustration reached a point
yesterday, and again today, where they have staged a protest on the road; where
actually yesterday the grader was on its way to grade the road in Conche and to
Conche, and the people actually stopped the grader. They stopped the grader
because they really see it as an exercise in futility. The road is gone, it is
down to the bedrock and for the amount of resource that has come out of that
community over the years - it once was a very prosperous fishing community with
a fish plant running there, where there was practically zero unemployment in the
summer months, as is the case with many communities in Newfoundland. Mr.
Speaker, they got nothing out of it. They got absolutely nothing out of this
government since 1949 practically. They are living there at the end of a
twenty-six kilometre gravel road that was built primarily by logging
contractors. They would like to see this government, as I said to the Minister
of Transportation, commit some funds, over the next couple of years, to upgrade
their road so that they have something decent and safe to travel on, which is
not a great deal to expect and to ask for, I do not suspect.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 1. We, on this side, eagerly await the
peroration of the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to say, before I start, the Government House Leader said he is
looking forward to my continuation. I just want to remind him that I do have
unlimited time, and I say to the hon. member, I intend to use it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, today I want to address a few more topics of
much interest, I might add, to the people of this Province relating to this
horrendous budget that was brought down by this government. They have the
audacity to ask us, in this House, to approve, in general, the budgetary
policies of the government. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I, for one, will not be
approving the budgetary policies of this government based on the budget that we
have seen here in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: The former Minister of Finance, who is the former Minister
of Health, provided an opportunity to critique on a couple of occasions, I might
add. He told me he is none the worse for his experience. His color has come back
again, and he is enjoying his new role as Minister of Mines and Energy. I am not
sure the Province is enjoying it very much - not too much at all, I might add -
because we have a grave concern that we are going to see a valuable resource in
our Province once again sold out, once again given away.
As our leader said yesterday, the nickel back - we might never get our nickel
back, I might add, if we see this going out for a period or number of years with
nothing proven. The technology is not proven. The technology has only taken
place in a laboratory basis, according to the President of Inco. It is only
being done in a lab, basically, and there are no assurances that company can
give that the hydromet technology is going to work. There is no guarantee it is
going to work on the type of ore that is found.
If the President of Inco said that, I cannot see why the Minister of Mines
and Energy is saying it is a proven technology when the President of Inco says
differently. The President of Inco is saying differently. It is only in the lab
stage. I heard and read those words, I say to the minister. The minister should
know that the ore in Labrador is not laterite, he should know that. Because what
applies: one man's meat is another man's poison. What is suitable for one is
not always suitable for another. You cannot apply the same basic chemical
procedures to one and apply it to another. I do not have a great knowledge of
chemistry, but I do have a limited knowledge of chemistry from my university
course in chemistry. Having taught it for twenty years, I learned a little bit
along the way but nothing of the level that is certainly required to make
appropriate decisions.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Now I say to the minister, to that diversionary tactic
there, I will get back in greater detail some other day over the next week or
two and deal with the mines and energy issue, but I want to address a few other
very pressing issues here in our Province.
When I adjourned debate yesterday on this issue I was talking about the sad
state of affairs that is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that
is the loss of our most valuable resource; and it is not nickel, it is not iron
ore, it is not our fish and our forest. The most valuable resource in our
Province are the people of our Province. We have seen almost 40,000 people leave
our Province just in the last few years; the census from 1996 to 2001. Most
people were shocked actually by the vast number of people who have moved out of
our Province. I fully anticipate that the numbers will go down because since
this government came to power in 1989 - we had 583,000 people. We have lost
70,000 people from our Province since this government came to power in 1989.
That is a telling statistic. It is very telling in many, many ways. You look at
70,000 people - add up some of the biggest towns and cities in our Province and
you would have to put a lot of them together to get 70,000 people. An erosion of
a tax base. An erosion of extra costs incurred by those left behind because we
have less people serving those communities; less people to share the burden of
taxation; less people to work and provide income to pay for various services in
the area.
I want to just touch briefly and have a look at some of the telling
statistics. These statistics are not localized to just rural Newfoundland. I
mean, how would you define rural Newfoundland? There are many areas of the
Province, outside the City of St. John's, that might not be regarded as rural
but they have suffered significant setbacks in the past period of time by
out-migration from those towns. Some of the towns in particular - and the losses
from these are quite telling.
I was reading some information on the losses. I just want to highlight some
of the areas in the diverse parts of our Province where population losses are
occurring. Really, can anybody tell us where in our Province haven't we lost
population? There have been very few areas of our Province that haven't
suffered tremendous setbacks. If we just have a quick look at most of this
Province, it shows us that here - the Avalon Peninsula, take in my district, for
example. Every single town in my district, except one, showed a loss of
population. That was one small community, Port Kirwan, that showed an increased
from ninety-four to 102. Not exactly what you would call a large community at
all, a community that certainly is struggling like all rural Newfoundland
communities are struggling.
The loss of population prior to that was significant. Many people have moved
out prior to that point, and that is why the population was down to ninety-four
people. We look at previous census that were even higher. We are not even
getting back close to what it used to be, and will we ever get back to what it
used to be? Well, the reason for being for many of these communities was based
on the fishery; a fishery that provided a livelihood. Almost every community had
a fish plant that people worked there on a regular basis. They received their
seasonal employment from that because it was a seasonal type of fishery. Some
areas had a year-round fishery. There were offshore plants. Trepassey, for
example, in the district. Even in Fermeuse they worked year-round at a fish
plant, and other areas on the Burin Peninsula, in particular, were primarily
involved in the offshore fishery, because we had a resource. Why don't we have
a resource today? Why haven't we got a ground fishery out there today?
Well, in great part because we did not protect the resource we had, and that
is why we are seeing communities around, like the community, for example, of
Renews, down from 503 to 423 people; Riverhead, St. Mary's Bay, 311 down to
264, 15.1 per cent; St. Mary's 18.2; Peter's River and the Gaskiers and
these areas, over 20 per cent loss in population. We move along to other areas,
for example. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tells us about
the prosperity out in his district. Well, areas like Southern Harbour have lost
population, 7 per cent; Arnold's Cove, over 8 per cent. We have seen Come By
Chance, 11.7; Sunnyside, 23 per cent; Norman's Cove, Long Cove, 13.8. The list
goes on and on.
I might add, in the Speaker's district, Heart's Desire, a 25 per cent
loss in population. That is very, very significant in five years, a 25 per cent
loss in population. New Perlican, Hant's Harbour, there is no area untouched
by this, right through into Conception Bay, even in the areas that would have
fair populations. Take Bay Roberts, for example. The Town of Bay Roberts lost
235 people in the Town of Bay Roberts alone. That is a loss of 4.3 per cent for
that town. We have seen in North River, a loss. We move into the Harbour
Main-Whitbourne district, we are seeing losses in every single community.
What is happening is telling us something. If we look at the Burin Peninsula,
for example, look at Lamaline. It has lost 21 per cent of its people in five
years. Look at some of the larger towns: Marystown. Marystown, according to this
figure, has lost 834 people; 834 people out of Marystown. That is quite a large
number of people to take out of any one community. Madam Speaker, who is in the
Chair, that is her district there. That has a telling effect on the local
economy.
Why are people going? Why are people leaving? Why is the population going
down? Well, I guess there are two reasons: it will go down if the death rate
exceeds the birth rate, and I think for the first time that has happened now;
and, if more people are moving out of the Province, obviously, than are moving
in. These are two logical things that impact on our final population. Why are
they moving out? Are people moving out of this Province today because they want
to move? Because they like Alberta? Because they enjoy Fort McMurray? Because
they enjoy Ontario? Because they enjoy other parts of the country? The answer
is, no.
People first and foremost enjoy living in Newfoundland and Labrador, they
enjoy being here in our Province. They are leaving for one basic reason. They
want to find employment. We have lost, in this Province, tremendous skilled
workers, older workers. If you look at the South Coast of the Province, in
Marystown in particular, a lot of skilled people, skilled trades who worked at
Marystown Shipyard, Cow Head, a lot of other people from all over the Province
came to work at the Bull Arm site. We have a tremendous labour force of skills
here in our Province who will help build structures in the United States, New
York, the World Trade Centre. People have worked on the World Trade Centre from
all over this Province, in particular out in Conception Bay Centre and those
areas, so we have a lot of skills.
The sad thing that is happening today is that we are losing our young people,
our future skilled people, the future people of our Province. We do not have
enough young people staying here because they cannot find employment. That is a
sad tale. Why haven't we found employment? What is happening with our Province
today?
One particular area of concern is, we have neglected to protect the resource
of our Province and we have allowed an industry that was the biggest employer in
our Province, the biggest employer by far - now, the fishery did not always
contribute most of the GDP of our Province in exports. One of the biggest
contributors for years to our Province was always in the mining industry, the
significant amount of mines. We have a valuable resource beneath the soil in our
Province: iron ore from Labrador; we have a giant discovery now in Voisey's
Bay; we have had mines in Central Newfoundland, the Central-West part of the
Province. We have had them out on the West Coast, South Coast, all over, Bell
Island at one point in time. We have seen great potential.
One of the sad things that has happened, that is causing out-migration of
people, is our renewable resource. There is no excuse for depletion of renewable
resources. We can see non-renewable resources cannot be replenished. The oil off
our shores took hundreds of millions of years to form, and we will not see a
replenishing of those within hundreds and hundreds of millions of years again,
and maybe never.
The resources that we can control, our renewable resources, even in our
forests - take in our forests, for example. You can count trees easier than you
can count fish. You know the level of production that is needed, you know the
inputs into an operation in the newsprint industry, what is needed. You know how
many trees are in our Province. You can count them; they are visible things. You
can estimate the rate of growth based on how long it takes to grow to maturity.
You can determine all these things, and there is no excuse whatsoever; our
programs for regeneration, our Silviculture programs, should be keeping pace
with the depletion of our forestry resource.
There has to be sensible, sustainable development in our resources and we are
responsible, us and us alone, for the forestry industry in our Province, this
Province. That is one that we cannot blame on Ottawa and ask Ottawa to take
responsibility for, because we are the controllers. We have the power to do
that, and sometimes this government has made political decisions at the expense
of sustainability of our resources. When you make short-term political
decisions, you only help the short term of the people for a very short period
but you pay a price down the road. We should never compromise sustainable
development for short-term political gains. It does not do anybody any good, and
we all pay the price later on.
That brings us to probably one more. Besides the forestry, the resource that
is probably most galling to see depleted in our Province is the fishery, because
the fishery was our reason for being. It is the reason that people came to our
Province and settled on our shores, the reason they salted cod and shipped it
back, and they came here mostly in the summertime and then stayed over. There is
a colony up in my district, the Colony of Avalon, back in the early 1620s, and
it became a very prominent, a very historic, area. That just typifies other
communities around this Province that became the early settlements in this
Province.
These people built up a legacy for generations and generations that sustained
the economy in our Province. In 1949, when we joined Canada in 1949, we joined
Canada with money in the bank. Today, it is sad to say, we are approaching a $9
billion deficit. We have amassed a deficit of almost $9 billion since 1949. In
fifty-three years we have gone to an extreme. Since 1989, since this government
took power, we have amassed a debt of $4 billion in that period of time. We have
amassed an additional $4 billion on top of what we already had. We are told that
we are going through some of the most prosperous times in our Province. God help
us if things get worse, if we are now facing the most prosperous times in our
Province's history.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there are communities all over the Province suffering
from the fishery.
Sustainability: Why haven't we done something about it? Well, there are
reasons why there are not as many cod out there as there were before. Some of
them have been inflicted by our own people. We have had numerous reasons
contribute, all in varying proportions, the least of which is the seal
population. The seal has contributed to a reduction in the amount of cod.
Other factors were dragging over breeding grounds in the wintertime. It
should not happen. I spoke to trawlermen, and people who spent their lives out
on the sea, who told me that -
AN HON. MEMBER: You talked to trawler people.
MR. SULLIVAN: No, I have talked to trawlermen, I have not talked to any
trawler women on this topic. Everyone I spoke to, as I went around in my
campaign, who fished out on trawlers, were men. If there were women who fished
out there, I have not spoken to them, I say to the Minister of Works, Services
and Transportation. He wants to be a little cute on words.
In fact, I was not aware of the fact at that time, that there were women
fishing on trawlers in the Province. Maybe they were, but I am not aware of it.
If they are, I am -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) few.
MR. SULLIVAN: Back in the eighties?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, there were a few.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I was not aware there were, but the ones I have
spoken to in my district told me that they saw flounder. In every little mesh
there was a little baby flounder about that size, a little tiny flounder. They
fished out of trawlers from the South Coast and they landed in Trepassey.
Trepassey is not down on the South Coast of the Province, the south part of the
Avalon Peninsula, I might say to the minister, but people earned a living there
and made a good living. People working these plants did quite well, built new
homes, and things were prosperous, I might add. The fishery got destroyed.
Sealing contributed a small part to it, or maybe a big part; it is unknown
exactly. It also got contributed by trawling, trawling and dragging over
breeding grounds in the wintertime. That had a devastating effect. We have had
undersized mesh and liners in fishing gear as fish got smaller. There was
dumping and discarding at sea. I have talked to people who observed the
practices there. If you only have a quota, you can only bring in so much. You
dump the smaller, keep the higher price and bring that in, and you get a better
price on it. That was a part of it. Foreign overfishing contributed immensely to
it. Not just foreign overfishing in terms of the amount caught, but foreigners
using liners in their trawls, dumping the smaller, discarded fish out so they
can have a higher priced voyage as a result; fishing in areas where people were
not permitted to fish because the stocks were not considered to be as healthy. A
host of factors have contributed to the demise of the fishery in our Province.
Somebody has to take responsibility. Somebody has to take responsibility for
enforcement. The people who harvested are out trying to make a living and
maximize their profit. Governments are elected to protect the resources of
provinces. Our Province did not do its job in taking Ottawa to task, because it
and the federal government has failed to do something about it.
I made some reference in the House yesterday, I sat in the gallery in the
House of Commons on Thursday and I was really disgusted when the Minister of
Fisheries stood up in his place in response to a question in reference to cod
and American plaice, species under moratorium, and said, they are doing nothing
illegal. They are not breaking any laws, and the member knows they are not
breaking any laws. He knows they are not breaking the law so he knows the truth
when he is saying this.
That is what the Minister of Fisheries said in the House of Commons. That is
very galling and it is appalling for people who live outside the confines of
Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal, who do not realize the price that Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians have paid for the assault on the main area of their livelihood,
and that is the fishery.
To tell us that we have gone through generations when it is not illegal to
catch species that are under a moratorium, that it is legal to do that, by other
nations, but it is not legal for Canada. There is something wrong with the whole
scheme of things. There is something wrong. NAFO is a farce. Canada should pull
out of NAFO and unilaterally go out and take control of our jurisdiction. We
should set our mark and take our place on the world stage in fighting for
resources that have been raped, allowing species to become extinct.
There have been over a million species that have become extinct over the
course of history, and there has been new species to be discovered and evolved
with time, and we do not want the one that was our livelihood for 500 years to
be one of those that becomes extinct. Once species get to a certain level, once
they get down to a low level, where they cannot regenerate or produce enough to
a level, they get out-competed for the food source. Other species become more
dominant. That is the course of evolution. Other species can more easily adapt
and survive in the environment, and the species that is lower gets whittled down
to where they disappear. That is basically what happens. That is the course, the
process of evolution: survival of the fittest. Now the smaller species are cod.
Look at the average size of a cod now compared to what it used to be.
I remember back in the 1950s and early 1960s when we went fishing. We grew up
around fishing, from the time we were that high, out in a fishing boat, and we
saw huge cod that size. You would cuff a whole load of them into a dory and fill
a dory with all fish that size. It was a different size of fish than what we see
today. There is a reason for it. Fish grow when there is a food source; when you
do not kill the spawning ones, when you allow them to reach a certain level.
I did hear George Rose on this morning indicating that some now have gotten
to that level where they can become significant, because it is almost
exponential when they get to a certain age in spawning, when they just reach the
maturity level where they can spawn, but as they get older and older it goes up,
almost like an inverse pyramid. If you do not get to that critical level, if you
cannot get to that level, then you cannot get the production levels up to a
certain point. It is like if someone said to you - I will give you an example.
If I give you a penny today, and I doubled that tomorrow, and I doubled that the
next day, what would you have at the end of the month? Five point two million
dollars. You sit down the first two weeks and you do not have much money, but
when you start getting into the twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth
day, you can see the massive amount that it moves. So, when you get beyond the
critical point there - and we are at a critical point, a critical mass in
certain species out there right now - if we do not take the strongest action
possible.... Fish move. Fish migrate. They have always migrated. Our people,
though, have never migrated to the extent they are doing today. Our fish is a
migratory species, and if you go out on the Nose and Tail of the Banks and you
drain a barrel from one corner, it doesn't matter. If you put the hole in the
bottom of one side or the other, you are still draining it. The same thing is
happening on the Nose and Tail of the Banks, and our Province hasn't been
vocal enough in taking on the federal government. We know it is an area of
federal responsibility. It is an area that we passed over quite generously to it
when we voted, or supposedly voted, for Confederation. Confederation hasn't
served us very well in terms of protecting our resources. We have been used as
pawns on the chessboard of international affairs. That is what our fishery has
been used as, as a pawn, a pawn to look at trade, to look at other areas,
whether it is access to wheat, or whatever it is. We have used that at the
expense of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is pretty sad, when our
Province has been used by the bigger parts of this country to achieve the result
they want. Then the apathy that is shown by federal ministers and the federal
government in addressing those concerns is even more appalling.
That is why, when we look at communities all over our Province, there is not
a community in Newfoundland and Labrador today that is not severely affected by
the fishery. I might say, St. John's is doing all right. Look, St. John's
and Mount Pearl, this area, the same as other central areas, employ a lot of
people in the fishery; a lot of people. Supplies for fish plants, from cartons
and plastics, to poly that is used in wrapping fish, to containers that are
used, to parts for the trucking industry, are all parts, basically, and
necessary products that are put on the market. Navigational equipment, whether
it is sounders, GPS navigational sounders for locating fish, are today all parts
of equipment that are very important in the prosecution of the fishery here in
our Province.
Businesses here have felt the effect of the fishery, and the supply
industries. Supply industries are mostly in larger urban areas. They have been
affected. But none have been affected to the extent of the communities - when
you drive around communities today, you can see houses boarded up. Last week I
walked around in Renews, and as we walked around Renews, myself and a friend, we
counted almost thirty houses in this little community that nobody lives in. If
you look at the population of Renews, for example, on this census here, it now
has, between Renews and Cappahayden, I assume, because it is under the one town,
only four hundred and twenty-some people.
In Trepassey there are probably fifty or sixty more houses than that, two or
three times that, shut down, and nobody living there. Many of the houses where
there are people today, there are single people living there. Widows are living
there, whose families have moved away, whose spouses have passed away, and the
only contact is by telephone with their children who are scattered all over the
country. In fact, so much so that is what is starting to happen now is, for the
first time, not only are the young people moving out, but I am finding out that
their parents now, the single parents that are left, are taking up roots and
going too. I know people have left because their daughter is in Calgary and
their son is living in Edmonton and the rest of the family is in the Alberta
area. They are moving. Older people are moving also. They are moving out of our
Province. That is contributing to the downsize in population.
I wouldn't be surprised if I was told today that the population of our
Province now is down close to the 500,000 mark. If it was 513,000 in the census
document a year ago, and there is a downward trend, it has even gone down
further. If you look back over the past few years, we had a net loss in
1995-1996 of 7,436 people. Then it went to 8,134 in 1997; then to 9,490 the net
loss; in 1999, 5,695; in 2000, 4,263; 2000-2001, 3,541. So, if that is the rate
that is still occurring we are going to see our population down less than,
probably 510,000 people. A half million people that you can drop into several
large cities in this country.
I was in Ottawa last week. Driving in I seen on a sign on the highway:
population, 780,000. Seven hundred and eighty thousand people now in the City of
Ottawa. We are not two-thirds the size of the City of Ottawa, and there are many
Newfoundlanders there, too. Many people had to move there to seek employment, to
be able to continue - to be able to provide a living.
MR. MATTHEWS: You are doing a good job, Loyola. (Inaudible) have to leave
for a minute.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, you may
leave if you so wish.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. SULLIVAN: I won't be offended, I say to the minister, if he leaves.
But there are other towns - and it is not just the areas that I have referred
to. There are areas on the South Coast. Out in Port aux Basques, for example, in
Channel-Port aux Basques there has been a loss of 600 people; over 606 people.
Almost 12 per cent out in the southwest corner. If you go right up through that
coast right into Stephenville, Stephenville Crossing, 12.7 per cent, 8.4 per
cent respectively they have lost. Rose Blanche and Harbour Le Cou, 18 per cent.
I mean they are significant totals. I cannot find an area of this Province where
there is not a loss.
I know some towns have shown increases. For example, Paradise is a growing
area. The population of Paradise has gone up a reasonable amount because it is a
growth area. There is new housing going on in that area. We have seen some other
areas there - and the minister representing the area is thanking me. He should
be thanking all the people out there who do see an area that is close to the
city, a new and growing town; where the mayor is doing a good job there in the
town, and the council out there. Now I understand they are even looking at
having a plebiscite out to the people there as to whether they would like some
form of consolidation of their town with maybe Mount Pearl. Who knows? Maybe
they might want to take in the Goulds area. Maybe they might want Southlands in
between and put it all into another town. Maybe that might be an option they
might be looking at. Who knows? Then maybe the Goulds area might get the
attention that it did not get, to date, from the City of St. John's. Maybe it
might get that attention. Maybe that is not a bad idea to float out there, and
have a look at the feasibility, because if the Goulds area wanted to go with
Mount Pearl and Paradise - the Southlands area in between, I understand, has a
potential for almost 20,000 people. That is a tremendous area there, and that
could solve that problem then. St. John's wouldn't have to worry about the
Goulds then.
Southlands is a potential area for Mount Pearl that is a little cramped in
its room to expand. In future that could end up and double that area. That
certainly might be a reasonable alternative to the options now because the
people in the Goulds have basically been told that they are going to have to
wait twenty years to get these services. That is basically what the mayor has
told them: come back in twenty years time and we will see if we can fix your
water and sewer problems then. It was not our problem. That was thrown in by
this government, by the way; forced amalgamation on people.
Maybe the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs might even like the
concept I just tossed out there. I will just repeat it for his benefit. I said,
maybe if Paradise and Mount Pearl decided they would like to join together and
form a city, maybe they might be interested in taking in the Goulds area. If
they do, it is only logical. The area in between that is Southlands, you cannot
leave that in limbo. Maybe that would give them something to entice another
20,000 in potential growth and have a city with tens of thousands of more
people.
With Paradise growing, pushing 10,000; Mount Pearl with twenty-some,
thirty-some; the Goulds with another sixty-five. We are now pushing 40,000 -
potential Southlands. We have the potential of a 60,000-70,000 population city.
That would be a fair sized city there, with an opportunity -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am saying that if the people in those areas were
receptive to that. It is a concept that should be pursued and see where it goes.
I think that is a logical thing.
MR. MERCER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not. The Liberal Government and resettlement in
the 1960s, I say to the Member for Humber East, at all.
It is by consensus of the people. If the people do not want it, the people
should not get it. That is unlike the policies of your government that said: you
are going to get it whether you like it or not. That was the policy of that
government.
We are talking about rural Newfoundland and the population decline. The
statistics all over the Province - in every single nook and cranny of this
Province we are seeing out-migration. I will admit, some of it would have
occurred anyway because of the decrease in the birth rates. Some of it is going
to occur, lets face it.
AN HON. MEMBER: How many are in your family, Loyola?
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is asking, how many are in my family? Twelve
children in our family.
AN HON. MEMBER: How many of them (inaudible)?
MR. SULLIVAN: There are twenty-five; an average of two point five. Some
of them are still young so we could get the average up to three, who knows. The
average could get up close to three, which is a fairly high average. Well, that
is one of the reasons but there is another reason for it too. There is another
reason why the population is down in rural Newfoundland. One, I will admit,
there is an urban shift across the entire country. The City of Winnipeg has 60
per cent of the population of Manitoba. The two main cities in Saskatchewan, for
example, have about 40 per cent of the population of Saskatchewan; Regina and
Saskatoon. In Alberta we are looking at about half - Alberta's population is
up two point - a million.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they are over half the population in two cities. Here
on the Avalon now - we have over half the population on the Avalon which is
within driving distance to the City of St. John's. That is going to happen to
a certain extent, but it will only happen if the employment opportunities are
not there.
People perceive rural Newfoundland as not having a strong future. There are
no programs and policies. We have not developed the industries in rural
Newfoundland to do it. Granted, every community in Newfoundland cannot have a
fish plant or cannot have a business. What we need, within reason, are growth
centres in each area where people can commute a reasonable distance to get work.
You can propose a reasonable distance. But where is it happening? Tell me where?
Point out, from this government's policy, where all those centres are and
where the people are coming in around that (inaudible). It is not happening. It
is in theory. It has not happened in practice. Why hasn't it happened in
practice? Maybe the policies are not, as such, that would entice that to happen.
You have to plant the seeds and nurture them to get the result. If it does not
happen, we do not get the result. We basically have not seen that result
happening here in this Province. That is why people are not holding out great
hope and why young students in high school today are telling you that they are
not intending to come back and live their communities. It is a sad story. It is
a sad tale and there are a lot of stories that can be told in rural Newfoundland
on that situation.
I made reference to one yesterday. I will not repeat it today but I did make
reference to an
article I read in the Globe and Mail on March 13. The
heading was: Where the Jobs Are - for many go west, still the best advice. That
advice, I guess, goes right back to a long time ago. Alfred Lord Tennyson, I
believe, uttered that phrase: Go west, young man, go west. Today, in this
Province, we are still going west.
If you look at the population - just take the population of various cities in
Canada and look at the Newfoundland component that is there. There is a
tremendous Newfoundland component in Cambridge, Ontario. Cambridge, Ontario is
made up of a combination of three different cities. Gault, Hespler and Preston,
I think, were the three that makes up the City of Cambridge. In the Gault area
alone there are thousands and thousands and thousands of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. Bell Island, in particular, a lot of people moved to that area for
work when the mines closed there.
Fort McMurray; a significant percentage of Fort McMurray are Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians. It is estimated at 40 per cent. I have heard the figure 40 per
cent but the population is still growing fairly strong. The economy is booming
up there. Housing prices are way up. I have heard the figure of 40 per cent,
whether that is accurate. I have been told that it is not quite that high by
people who are there, but I have heard that figure. I know a tremendous number
of people there are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
When we look at our Province, we find that we are left with a small
population. What impact does this small population have? I was making reference
yesterday, before I adjourned debate, to something that I just want to get back
to. It is an interview that I listened to, and this is a transcript of that
interview. I am making reference to the transcript of that.
On March 12 Jeff Gilhooly did an interview with an economist at Memorial
University, and this came out after the statistics and looking at our
population. What does that mean to our Province, in other words? Tell us, from
an economic perspective, what does it mean? The announcer said: Well, we are
down to 513,000 people. We are down about 55,000 from 1996 - but I think the net
loss was something like 40,000; 39,000-something.
He asked a question to him, and one of the questions was: "When you look
at how significant it is, it's averaging about 11,000 people a year, what are
the implications from this?" In other words, what impact is it going to
have on us as a Province? He said: Well, obviously, "...the more population
you have, the more equalization you get." That is one thing. How much
equalization do we get for each person? Well, we get about, I think it is about
$2,856 roughly. Let's round it off to a nice figure of $3,000. Those people
who went out of here in five years, that is a loss right now from five years
ago, of $120 million in one year. In one year now, at the peak of that loss, it
is $120 million a year. We are showing a deficit, of what, $93 million? That's
it right there. That is what we lost just applying that to the last year. I
guess it built up from previously. The first year we lost, we will say, $10,000
or $11,000 of that each year. That is what we are losing a year right now.
Basically, if you go back to the last five years - if you go back to the last
ten or twelve years, we have lost over $70,000. That would be $210 million a
year we would have been losing in equalization. That is one impact. The impact
is money that the feds are giving us under the equalization component of that.
My next topic that I am going to get to is equalization; I want to talk about
that. But, that is just one aspect of it.
He says: "There are two reasons why equalization will fall." Two
reasons. Basically, one is that you are a smaller population, you get a smaller
entitlement; because it is based on the per capita. He said: "On top of
that small population implies that the per capita turns for some base, we can
pay more of our own way." So, he said, there is a "double whammy. On
top of that if you're a company that sells goods and services in the domestic
market and that's an important part of your revenue stream..."- selling
the goods and services - "...that means you have less people and
consequently your market is lower and your ability to raise revenues and earn
profits are somewhat lower." Because you have 40,000 less people out there
in your market to sell your goods and services. So, that is less profit, less
money, less taxes coming into the coffers of government because of that and we
are going to be hit doubly hard in what has been passed to us under equalization
and the impacts it is going to have on the economy in these other particular
areas. So, basically, government is going to get less money.
The person made a reference - he does not know if the Finance Minister
"...has incorporated into her budget these new lower numbers before we had
them..." if she had them, or whether she may or may not have factored them
in but they "...certainly expect that they will have implications long into
the future. It's not only the number of people that's leaving is important,
it's who's leaving and from where they're leaving." So, who is
leaving this Province and from where they are leaving. Here is what the
economist said on this: It is not just the number that is leaving, it is who's
leaving. With that reference, he said: "...the best and the brightest are
leaving and the rest of us are staying." In other words, if we were bright
we wouldn't be here. We cannot be too bright, but we will take it at that.
On a serious note, the young people coming out of university and colleges
getting their trades want to get work. They want to make a dollar. They want to
make a good wage. They want to get out of here. They said, we cannot do it here.
They are getting out of here. In fact, I know people who came out of school, did
a course and wanted to get into the offshore. It was pretty competitive. My
advice to them, and to a lot of people, I said: Look, they are not taking people
without experience. If you can go away and get experience in Alberta or
elsewhere, come back and get jobs. People went away and toiled out there for a
year or two and then came back. There are many of them out working in these
fields out there now. A lot them who went away and served their time in Alberta,
and worked out there, are back now working here. There are many people who have
gone and done this BST course and others. There are so many out there now with
the courses waiting and lining up to get jobs; but people have gone away. Many
have stayed. Some have settled down, had children, families and decided - they
are settled in and are going to stay. Many have come back. People who were more
mobile, who probably did not have children and families, decided to come back.
The economist said: "...the best and the brightest are leaving and the
rest of us are staying." He goes on to say, "So the people who are in
a position to come up with new ideas and have the energy and the idealism to put
those ideas into action are the ones who are going elsewhere." Here is what
we are losing, we are losing the brain thrust for the future in this Province.
He said, "These are the ones that add to the productive capacity of the
economy and they're leaving." They are the least ones we can afford to
have going, ones that are going to add to the productive capacity of our
Province. That is certainly very important.
He went on to say, "...on top of that not only are we losing them but we're
losing them from rural Newfoundland which is the worse possible place to lose
them from because that population's been shrinking for a good period of time
and entrepreneurs in those areas need population in order to support their
businesses." That is why we are seeing in rural Newfoundland today - when
some communities, I recall, had five grocery stores, today there is only one.
If you drive from here to Trepassey, and take a two hour drive, once you get
outside the Goulds, past Bay Bulls, Witless Bay, how many gas stations do you
think are from Trepassey down to here? When you leave Trepassey you have to
drive to Cappahayden - which is open basically during the business hours of a
garage. You have one in Fermeuse, none in Ferryland, Calvert, Aquaforte any
more, Renews gone. You have to go to Cape Broyle. So there is only one that is
open from 7 o'clock in the morning to around 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock in the
night between Trepassey and Cape Broyle - and a second one that is open during
the daytime hours at least. At one time there were at least ten more in that
area.
How many grocery stores? The community that I live in, there were five or six
stores at one time; there is one. The community of Renews; I can remember when
there were three or four just in recent history. There is one right now. These
little stores are shutting down. Why? Why are they shutting down? Just what the
economist tells us, that one of the worst places to lose these young people is
in rural Newfoundland because business in those areas are losing their customer
base and they are losing revenue. These jobs are disappearing, and the
independent person who made a living out of their store cannot do that anymore
now. They cannot do it. They are just being gobbled up by a larger - or as their
kids move out they just do not continue the business anymore. That is what has
happened in many areas. That is sad when we look at those statistics.
It went on to say: ...the reason the unemployment rate is not as any much, or
reason it's falling or not rising to the extent it might have is because
people who would otherwise be unemployed have left - in other words, the reason
the unemployment rate is not as high as it used to be is because people are
leaving - and as they leave they shrink the size of the labour force and the
number of people who would otherwise be unemployed, and correspondingly the
unemployment rate is going to be affected.
Just look at the people who are on unemployment, the people who want to work
year round, who only could get several months and they go on unemployment, and
they decide: I cannot make it on unemployment, I am getting out of the Province,
so they go out of the Province. These people are not in the workforce. They are
unemployed, so that drives up our unemployment rate. Our unemployment rate goes
down when these people leave because they are going out for work. If they have
work they are not leaving, unless they want to move on to a better paying job,
but most people who have work at a steady job are not the ones who necessarily
leave. It is the ones who do not have work who are the ones that leave. That is
what the economist mentioned. It is another very important point.
What happens now when people leave? When people leave, you have to take the
debt of our Province, or the GDP, whatever way you could look at the debt, the
per capita debt, you could look at the GDP of our Province and you could say:
Look, our GDP per capita is going up. The GDP is going up per capita because the
population is going down, and that is going to drive the GDP up.
If 120 people out on the rig at one time can be responsible for putting
150,000 barrels of oil through, and they put it up to 200,000 and 120 are
responsible for 200,000 barrels, our GDP goes up but the number of people
involved in driving that up does not increase, so the per capita GDP increases.
We are seeing an increase and that gives you a false picture.
He goes on to say the same basic thing there that I just said. I sort of
capsulated some of the things and the references made here in this statement. He
said: When we're losing population - and it affects numbers here in the
provincial Treasury - it has implications for the provincial Treasury, it has
implications for the provision of public services in urban and rural areas of
our Province. As the population falls, it said, you may be able to cut back some
expenditures but there is a certain threshold.
That is what we are seeing in education now, I say to my colleague. What
happens when our school system lost, this past year - what, 4,000? How many
students, I ask our critic? In the vicinity, we will say, of 4,000 students.
What happens? If the 4,000 of them came from eight schools only, and the eight
schools disappeared, obviously taking teachers out of those schools would not
have changed the education programs. But, where did these students come from?
One or two came from a Grade 7 classroom, probably, up in Ferryland. Another two
came from a Grade 6 classroom, probably, out in Fogo, and somewhere else in Port
aux Basques, St. John's, and all over. You still need a principal. If the
school has 500 students or 480, they still need a principal. They still need an
assistant principal. They still have to have certain basic programs. If your
music class had twenty-four and now it has twenty-three, you still need a music
teacher. No class out there, basically, has the big numbers pulled out of them.
They are all being picked here and there as the enrollment goes down, and you
still need the teachers. If you have to take the teachers out of the system, you
have to take them out somewhere. If you are going to take them out, the
government is saying: Look we have less students, we do not need teachers; but,
teachers should be geared to programs. What do you consider an adequate program?
How many populations are in areas? You can get some economies in numbers in
larger areas, but in rural areas you cannot get all of those economies at all
and therefore that has a big effect.
Our leader, yesterday, raised a question. He talked about jobs out there, and
layoffs. This question, I know, we have asked. We have asked this during the
Budget discussions and lock-up. Our leader indicated that there are about 1,000
jobs going to be gone from the public service. That is not what we are being
told. I think the point we were trying to make is: Look, tell us the truth. Don't
tell us one thing and something else happens. If you are going to take 400 or
500 jobs out of health care, tell us you are going to take it out of health care
and let the people know. Do not profess to be something else.
The 5 per cent salary cut in our Budget equates to 300 jobs in the public
service. Whether you lay off 300 people or 300 people retire and there are 300
less jobs, there are 300 jobs gone however you cut it. There are 300 less jobs.
In teaching there are over 200, over 200 positions in teaching being taken
out of the Province this year and the minister referred to that, actually, in
our Budget. About 208, I believe, in that vicinity, teachers are being taken out
of our system.
When you add all that up, it adds up to about 1,000. You are looking at about
1,000 less people working in our Province. That also has an impact. What do you
think is going to happen with less people working in our system? If they retire,
fine, they could stay here. What happens if they do not? What happens to the
teachers that get laid off? Do you think they are going to stay around here? Are
they going to go on elsewhere? We are finding that there is a great demand for
teachers in other parts of this country, a great demand. There are parts of this
Province where we cannot fill teaching positions.
I just heard recently that they are going to try to assist in Labrador with
the board by taking over the housing for teachers in that area there, or take it
over from the board so that at least government will be responsible for the
housing and it is not a burden that the board would have. Those types of things
would help bring in teachers and help keep debt down on boards in that area. So
it is a provincial responsibility to look at providing education. If some boards
are encumbered with greater expenses than others, I think we have to look at:
the same treatment for everybody is an equity in treatment. You know, in some
areas you have to do more proportionate things to get equity into the situation.
That is an example of what could very well, on the surface, to me - it looks
like what is happening here.
I was going through my - I don't know how this one got in here. This is an
editorial, a little off the topic now, The Western Star , April 5, 2002:
No minister again for Corner Brook.
Mr. Speaker, passing a smile there, maybe I will just comment. The editorial
says: Premier Roger Grimes made some minor adjustments in his Cabinet Thursday
but his biggest oversight the first time he chose his ministers wasn't
corrected.
In other words, the Premier made the same mistake twice. The editorial says:
Premier Grimes managed last year to become the first Premier in more than fifty
year as a Province, not to include a portfolio for a member from either of the
Corner Brook districts. The Premier has continued that shortcoming in this week's
mini shuffle.
I didn't write this, by the way. This is an editorial: The second-largest
community in the Province still doesn't have a voice at the Cabinet table.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: That is what it said. It is an editorial. I will table
this, if they want it.
The Premier downplayed the decision last year by saying there are plenty of
Cabinets ministers from surrounding areas who can speak for the city and bring
the city's issues to the table. There are lots of them around the Corner Brook
area. Humber East doesn't have one, Humber West doesn't have one, Bay of
Islands doesn't have one. Humber Valley is the closest, I think. So the Humber
Valley minister is the minister for Corner Brook.
What this
article says is, that did not wash then and it is not washing now,
basically. It said: The Premier made the changes mainly because of the
resignation of the former Industry, Trade and Rural Development Minister, Beaton
Tulk, and it was an ideal opportunity to either put an MHA from the city in that
department or to move one of his more senior ministers into that slot and
replace them with one of the two Liberal MHAs who represent Corner Brook. It
seems an odd message to be sending to the voters in the region. It is not
sending a very good message.
It said: The Leader of the Opposition recently has a seat here and the
Premier seems to be saying he has a little interest in consolidating support in
the other seats that he does hold. In other words, he does not seem to be
interested.
It states here: The two Liberal MHAs, Bob Mercer and Eddie Joyce, must wonder
what opinion the Premier has in their abilities. He has twice passed on choosing
either of them to sit at the Cabinet table and represent the constituents where
real decisions of government are made.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that? Did Danny write that, Loyola?
MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is an editorial in The Western Star, April
5, Friday.
MR. REID: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you will have to call The Western Star and see
who writes their editorials, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
there, to see who writes that. Now that was just a stray paper in my notes. I
felt I wanted to cover all the bases.
The next topic I want to look at in little detail is equalization, because
that is a very important topic, a very, very important one. If you just look at
the Budget here and look at what equalization means, you can see that when our
Province is going to receive $1,158,015,000 in equalization, a significant
portion, a big chunk, almost one-third, in the 30 per cent range of all of the
revenues in our Province are coming in under equalization. You can see why it is
so important. I wanted to just talk about equalization and what this Province
has done since the new Premier has come in, in the past year, or lack thereof, I
might add, of what he has done.
Article 36.(2) of the 1982 Constitutional Act states - here is what the
Constitution of our country states - "Parliament and the Government of
Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure
that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably
comparable levels of public service at reasonably comparable levels of
taxation." That is what is in the 1982 Constitution Act,
Article 36.
(2) Have we received sufficient equalization to allow us to provide reasonable
levels of public services at reasonable levels of taxation, basically? Do we do
that? Well, yesterday I talked about taxation and I said that we are the second
or third highest taxed personal income tax of any province in this country, in
each of the three categories. Even in the lowest category, I made reference
yesterday, and I will just find that paper that points out basically where we
are in the scheme of things federally. The lowest tax bracket in our Province is
$29,590; and in that bracket, if you compare the taxes across the country, there
are only two provinces taxed higher, and only one other province taxed higher in
the other levels. That is Quebec.
Quebec is the only one, basically, that is ahead of us in all counts in
levels of taxation. There is no comparison to what Quebec gets in equalization.
They are the biggest recipient of equalization by far in the entire country, the
biggest recipient of that. So, I think it is very important that we give this
equalization the utmost consideration. I have mentioned that equalization is
$1.1 billion of public money, that is a tremendous amount of money, I might add.
What determines equalization? To my knowledge there are at least
thirty-three. In one magazine I read there, the Atlantic Report, I think, under
Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, referred to thirty-seven categories, but
any new categories under equalization now, I understand, there is 100 per cent
clawback on any new categories. That was my understanding. In fact, I was
informed of that.
For example, we would be wondering what impact offshore oil is going to have
on revenues that we get under equalization. Well, for every dollar, we are
losing 70 per cent. There are numerous different categories of oil, for example,
and I am just looking at some of the fuel ones, some of the oil ones. We have
new oil revenues as one category. We have old oil revenues, heavy oil, mined
oil, domestically sold natural gas, exported natural gas. We have other oil and
gas revenues. We have several different categories of oil and gas. There are
thirty-three listed here, I see, that make up the equalization formula, and each
one is factored in how we are performing. It follows a certain standard in
calculating how.
In fact, I might add, the Atlantic Accord has indicated that Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians shall be the principal, the primary, beneficiaries of our
offshore oil. How can we be the primary beneficiaries if Ottawa is taking,
basically, when you look at benefits, nine times as much as we are going to get?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Atlantic Accord (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: It is up to this government, of which that member over
to see that a fair share is given on those resources. It is about time this
government fought for our right cause under the Atlantic Accord, because the
Atlantic Accord has gypped us.
Since last February, I might add, Mr. Speaker, I have gone through and did
six different news releases on this topic addressing some of these concerns and
raising issues on lack of response by this government. On February 28 of last
year, I have indicated that Ottawa is offering a lame excuse for not adjusting
the equalization formula. When the equalization cap was introduced in this
Province and across the country under equalization, it was done without
consultation of the provinces. I want to touch on a few of these particular
points there.
When Ottawa enforced the equalization cap back in the 1980s, it did so
without consultation of the provinces. When Ottawa slashed transfer payments
under a new Canada Health and Social Transfer, it did so without the consent of
the provinces. Now, the federal government is telling us that we cannot change
the equalization formula because we have to get provincial consent to do it.
They did not need provincial consent. There is nothing in the Constitution Act
in any way that holds the provincial governments a party to the provision of
equalization. That is a sole responsibility of the federal government, and the
federal government has to own up to their responsibility. In fact, they put the
cap on unilaterally and they can take it off unilaterally. They did that last
fall, or the fall before last, when there was a federal election coming up. They
wanted to do something to lure the voters into voting for them, and they said we
will lift the cap on equalization. They lifted it. We got $38 million and they
put it right back on again. That is what happened. They lifted it during an
election. Did they get the consent of the provinces to lift it? No. Did they get
the consent when he put it on in the beginning? No. So, why do we have to get
consent in 2004? Do we need consent? We do not need consent. It can be done
unilaterally. It is a copout, it is a lame duck excuse from Ottawa, and it is
wrong and we should be kicking up a stink and holding them responsible to it.
I have addressed that in a release on February 8, 2001. Just a little while
later, on March 15 - and you can go to the Net and get the releases there. We
post them all there, so anybody who would like to read them, we keep them up to
date. I just went back to the file - I knew I had raised it on several occasions
- to see just how many times. I was surprised that on six occasions in that
period of time, since becoming critic, I have raised and commented