Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 1 May 2003 (44th General Assembly, 5th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 15)
2003-05-01
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 1, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIV No. 15
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Before we begin our routine proceedings for the day I would like to take this
opportunity to welcome to the House of Assembly a group of forty-five ladies.
They are led by Donna Peyton. They are with the Women's Home League of the
Salvation Army Corp in Bishop's Falls in the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, in 2001, Human Resources Development Canada
launched the Therese Casgrain Volunteer Award, to commemorate her work and to
honour annually two Canadians, one male and one female, who have demonstrated a
lifelong commitment to volunteering.
Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured and proud that the male recipient of this
award is a citizen of our Province, Mr. Des Dillion. Des is originally from St.
Mary's Bay, but now a long time resident of Gander.
Des has spent the majority of his adult life offering his time and support to
others. In the late 1960s, he first became involved with the Canadian Red Cross,
when he and his wife Jeanne taught water safety courses to children and adults
in Goose Bay. Upon his arrival in Gander, he continued this water safety work
and also began to volunteer with disaster preparedness and a variety of other
services offered by the Red Cross. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Gander
Community Services Council recently presented the Dillion's with its first
ever Family Volunteer Award.
Mr. Dillion's volunteer efforts with the Red Cross occurred not only here
in Newfoundland and Labrador but all across North America. Always willing to
volunteer his time, he has helped to provide disaster relief on numerous
occasions, such as the California Earthquake in 1994, the Manitoba flood in
1997, the Swissair crisis in 1998, and the events of September 11 in 2001.
Currently, Mr. Dillion is the Chairperson of the Health and Community
Services Board in Gander and also serves as the Chair of a committee established
to create a Disaster and Relief Distribution Centre for the United Nations in
Gander. It is anticipated that this centre could become one of two world-wide
locations established by the United Nations to manage disaster situations.
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask all members to join with me
in congratulating Mr. Dillion on receiving this prestigious award.
Thank you very much.
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.
Today is a special day in the life of a very special lady in the District of
Placentia & St. Mary's. Today Mrs. Emily Dakins is celebrating her
ninety-ninth birthday.
Mrs. Dakins was born in Mount Carmel, St. Mary's Bay, on May 1, 1904. She
was one of eleven children. After marrying Henry Dakins she became the mother of
ten children of her own, five boys and five girls. Today she has fifty-four
grandchildren, sixty-two great -grandchildren and seven great, great
grandchildren.
Mrs. Dakins has spent the last number of years at the Lions Manor Nursing
Home in Placentia. As far as we know, she is the oldest person residing at Lions
Manor. She was quoted in our local newspaper, The Charter , this week as
saying, "Some days she feels alright other days are not so good."
Her favorite activity she says is to go out and pick dandelions, according to
her daughter Imelda.
Mrs. Emily Dakins has lived a tremendous life and has seen many changes but
even at the great age of ninety-nine she still possesses a zest for life.
I ask all members of the House of Assembly to join with me today in sending
our congratulations and best wishes to Mrs. Emily Dakins as she celebrates her
ninety-ninth birthday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
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 stand today to congratulate Kentucky Fried Chicken Outlet at
the Peninsula Mall in Marystown on recently receiving the tenth annual, Clean
Across Canada promotion national award.
This award, sponsored by Proctor & Gamble, was designed to challenge
Canadian KFC restaurants to show they are among the cleanest and best run in the
world.
Marystown KFC won the Atlantic region competition and then tied with an
Ontario restaurant for the top Canadian award. It was one of eight restaurants
in Atlantic Canada region to receive perfect scores in the first round of
inspections.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this hon. House, I would like to
applaud Manager Anita Brown and the fifteen member staff at Marystown KFC on
their well-deserved win. I would also like to congratulate all other restaurants
that took
part in this competition and commend them to striving to make their
work area a cleanly and sanitized environment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate Clarenville High's Drama Group who won this
year's District Drama Festival. The Festival was held at the Rising Tide Arts
Centre in Trinity, from April 9 through April 11, and included presentations
from eight schools throughout the Vista School District.
The Clarenville High group, in addition to winning the Best Play Award for
their production Stroke Static , won several individual awards. Raphael
Borja won Best Actor; both Matthew Green and Desiree Hopkins won Best Supporting
Actor Awards; and Keisha Parsons, a violin player, took the Award for Best
Original Score. They performed under the direction of their coach, Bruce Stagg,
who was supported by teacher sponsor Nancy North.
Mr. Speaker, this group will now go on to perform at the provincial level,
which incidently is also going to be hosted in Trinity at the Rising Tide Arts
Centre from May 8 through May 10 Trinity is fast becoming the theatre capital of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and I invite everybody to join the group this summer
on their vacation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like also to ask all the members of the House today to
join me in congratulating Clarenville High and wishing them well in the upcoming
provincial competition.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Mariner
Resource Opportunities Network Incorporated, M-RON, for organizing a series of
Community Youth Info Fairs to be delivered at four high schools along the
Baccalieu Trail, reaching approximately 2,200 students. The theme of the fairs
is: Expanding Horizons.
M-RON has partnered with the Trinity Conception Youth Protocol Committee, the
Baccalieu Trail Youth Council, HRDC and the Avalon West School Board to provide
needed support for schools to assist students with career development planning
and their transition from secondary to post-secondary education. Hopefully, this
initiative will alleviate future problems of out-migration and high student
debt, ensuring strong social development and a vibrant economy.
I was, Mr. Speaker, in attendance at the Youth Info Fair held at Crescent
Collegiate, Blaketown, on April 30, and the response from the teachers and
students was absolutely tremendous. Marg Coombs, M-RON Project Co-ordinator, was
pleased with the positive feedback she received commenting, "We wanted to
put a different spin on the traditional info fairs and bring in presenters from
various industry sectors who can give students a positive, realistic outlook as
to their options for choosing careers."
Presenters, Mr. Speaker, included the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of
Labour, Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Federation of Independent Business,
HRDC, HR&E, RCMP, the Avalon Healthcare Institutions Board, various
post-secondary institutions, Edulinx Canada, Student Aid Financial Services,
Canadian Armed Forces and Trinity Conception Development Corporation.
I am sure the members of this House will join with me in congratulating
M-RON, in thanking its partners and presenters for this initiative to help the
2,200 secondary students along the Baccalieu trail to participate in the Career
Development Planning Fair.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reflect on a very important date
and a very important week to our Jewish community.
Tuesday, April 29, was the day Yom Hashoah. The Jewish lunar calendar tells
us that this is the day of the Holocaust.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador reflect with horror on the systematic
persecution and murder of European Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators
between 1933 and 1945. With our Province's Jewish community, we mourn the six
million dead and grieve the loss this represents. The loss of talent, beauty,
potential, and the loss of precious human life.
During the Second World War, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians took part,
along with our allies throughout the world, in a prolonged armed struggle to
defeat the Nazis and their collaborators. So we choose this day, Hashoah, to
observe a solemn remembrance of the victims of the Holocaust and to honour those
who fought to defeat the tyranny and genocide that engulfed Europe at that time.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all hon. colleagues, and all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, to recognize this day and to reflect upon the enduring lessons of
the Holocaust. Let us also consider other instances of genocide and systematic
persecution now going on around the globe.
Let us be mindful of the intrinsic, absolute and inalienable value of the
multiple cultures of our Province, our country and our world.
To observe and reflect on this horrific event, on behalf of the Hebrew
congregation of Newfoundland and Labrador, I would like to invite everyone to
attend the Holocaust Memorial Service being held this Sunday evening, May 4,
beginning at 8:00 p.m. at Prince of Wales Collegiate.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let us say, with our Jewish community and the
Jewish people the world over, "never again."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I thank the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for
forwarding a copy of his statement with respect to remembrance of the day of the
Holocaust.
Mr. Speaker, we too on this side of the House join with the minister and the
government members in remembrance of this very tragic event in the history of
the Jewish people. While we mourn this tragic loss of human life between 1933
and 1945, we now celebrate with the Jewish people especially in this Province
for the contribution they are making to both the cultural and economic
well-being of our society.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to join also in acknowledging this week the recognition by the
Newfoundland and Labrador Jewish community of the Holocaust Memorial Day, and
also to reflect with them the horror of the systematic persecution and murder of
European Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators during the period 1933 to
The Jewish community consistently reminds us of this horror, and also the
horror against not only them but all of humanity by this kind of persecution
which was, in addition to the Jews, enacted against political prisoners or
enemies of the Nazis state, against homosexuals, against the Romanian gypsies
and others, and reminds us of how important it is for us to be consistently
mindful of the need for strong human rights legislation and culture throughout
the world.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to announce the
proclamation of the new Adoption Act. This new progressive legislation replaces
the Province's previous adoption legislation, the Adoption of Children Act.
The Adoption Act represents a significant and positive shift in how adoption
services are provided in Newfoundland and Labrador. This act focuses on the
child as a centre of every adoption. It represents a more open direction in the
delivery of our adoption services. The new legislation allows for openness
agreements between birth parents and adoptive parents for ongoing exchange of
information or contact. It also provides for greater openness in the release of
adoption information.
Mr. Speaker, although the new Act is more open than the previous Adoption of
Children Act, it still recognizes the confidentiality commitments made under
previous legislation. The new Adoption Act has provisions to allow adopted
individuals and birth parents to file a disclosure veto for adoptions filed
under the previous Act to prevent identifying information from being released
through the birth registration or adoption order.
Anyone interested in filing a disclosure veto or a no-contact declaration has
one year to do so. There is a one year delay, until April 30, 2004, before the
Vital Statistics Division will begin releasing information. We have provided
this delay so that adopted individuals and birth parents have time to file a
disclosure veto or no-contact declaration with the Vital Statistics Division.
Mr. Speaker, we want children to be involved in the processes which affect
them; as such children twelve years of age or older must give consent to their
adoption. Children under age twelve years will have knowledge of the adoption
process and their views must be considered.
The new legislation also provides for a more independent adoption process for
relatives and step-parents. A self-help kit has been developed to guide
applicants through the adoption process for relative and step-parent adoptions.
Mr. Speaker, many of the new elements I have mentioned are progressive. We
are a model for the rest of the country to follow. Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians have been asking for changes in adoption policies and law, and I am
pleased that after comprehensive public consultations, we now have this new
legislation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister would know, when we debated this piece of legislation in the
House our party was very supportive of the legislation and we, too, would
characterize it as being somewhat progressive legislation. I say to the
minister, we are very pleased to see the focus is now on the child.
One of the things, though, that makes the success of any plan is how we
implement it. Mr. Minister, I suggest very strongly that in this particular
process we make sure there are adequate resources in the community, particularly
in rural Newfoundland, outside the major centres, to be able to provide
counseling to the parents, to the adoptive parents and to the birth parents, so
that they all have a good understanding of what is available to them and what
rights they have.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister very strongly that the
implementation plan include a good in-service focus for the people who are going
to be involved in the community - social workers, family physicians, school
guidance counsellors - because the plan and the act itself is the cornerstone.
But, how we go about implementing it, how it is accepted in the communities, and
how we present it will dictate its success and whether or not what we have
dictated in this House becomes a reality out in the communities where it is
really going to have an impact on the child and the parents involved in this
process.
Mr. Speaker, I would pass those suggestions to the minister to ensure that as
we move forward with this, this becomes a key part of the strategy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We, too, welcome
the changes made to the adoption act and the proclamation of the new adoption
act.
It is very important, Mr. Speaker, for open agreements between birth parents
and adopted parents and it is very important that adopted children have access,
hopefully, to their medical histories and their family's medical histories for
their own well-being.
This also bestows rights on children that did not exist prior to the new
adoption act and we think that it is a step in the right direction. It is a
progressive act and hopefully things will be better, will improve in this
Province, and we set an example for the rest of the country to lead as well.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to congratulate North Atlantic Refining Limited on their purchase of
forty Petro-Canada service stations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It is
good to see a local company which employs over 700 Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in the Province experience such significant growth.
Yesterday's announcement provides North Atlantic with a greater market
share of provincial retail petroleum sales. This growth will be distributed in
rural and urban Newfoundland and will expand upon the company's home heat,
propane, marine diesel, and jet fuel markets. Each year North Atlantic generates
in excess of $140 million to the local economy. This expansion will help that
number grow and will strengthen and diversify their operations in the Province.
It is very encouraging to witness the business partnerships between our local
companies, and the national and international investment community. Petro-Canada
is a major investor in our offshore petroleum industry, and remains committed to
the Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose projects. Petro-Canada is also
continuing with their exploration programs offshore Newfoundland, and are a
partner in the Hebron-Ben Nevis project. I commend Petro-Canada for their
continuing commitment to our Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join today in congratulating North
Atlantic and Petro-Canada on reaching this mutually beneficial business deal.
Strong local companies will ensure that our economy grows and remains vibrant.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Usually I would stand up and thank the minister for a copy of his statement
today. I commend him because his first ministerial statement he gave to me two
minutes before the House opened but today I got this the day before the House
opened. So I commend the minister for his improvement.
We, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to congratulate North Atlantic Refining and
Petro-Canada for what we believe to be a win-win situation. I spoke with
officials from both companies yesterday morning. I agree with the minister,
especially North Atlantic who employees some 700 people in this Province and
also contributes some $60 million to payroll in this Province each year, which
is very significant. Also, to Petro-Canada who are going to continue an
investment in our offshore, and as we know that to be very, very important.
Mr. Speaker, we also congratulate both companies. As we said, it is a win-win
situation for both companies. As North Atlantic's motto goes - we have seen
their advertisements many times. They say it is home heat from home and it is
the home team. In this case the home team won, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly want to wish North Atlantic well with their new acquisition. I am
sure it will be very advantageous for them to integrate their refining
operations with what they call the downstream and the distribution. It will be
very efficient for them. They have been very active in the Province.
I cannot help but be a bit disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that Petro-Canada, our
once national oil company that was established at the insistence of the New
Democratic Party a number of years ago, is abandoning its presence on the
streets in the Province through its oil stations and gas stations. It is a
disappointment, Mr. Speaker. We would like to see them reinvest more of the many
dollars that they are making in the offshore -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: - as we found the other day in this Province. We are
disappointed to see that they are leaving. I hope this is not a political
statement, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, the last thing that any member of this House wanted was for this
cod closure to become politicized. We wanted to continue to speak in a united
voice for the good of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but, Mr. Speaker,
the Premier made a comment yesterday that was completely inaccurate and untrue,
and I cannot sit quietly by and allow the Premier to get on with his political
nonsense without setting the record straight.
Mr. Speaker, immediately prior to the meeting with Minister Thibault on March
17, the all-party committee convened and agreed that our recommendations would
be on an all or nothing basis and not a cherry-picking approach.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in this House, the Premier implied that I broke ranks
with the committee in that meeting when, in fact, the Premier seriously damaged
the all-party report in his opening remarks by indicating to Minister Thibault
that the report was not, in fact, comprehensive and that if the fishery closed,
various options were still available. I remember it very clearly, Mr. Speaker,
because our collective jaws in the room dropped at his statement.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm, or, if not, it can be confirmed by
the MHAs, the MPs, or the senators on the all-party committee, that he, in fact,
discredited the all-or-nothing approach by the all-party committee when his own
opening remarks completely contradicted the unified position of the all-party
committee and seriously undermined our efforts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am disappointed, obviously, at the approach today. Yesterday, I think we
had a useful exchange because it was necessary to clear the air in terms of who
was supporting whom in the days after the announcement was made.
Mr. Speaker, I think the seriousness of the issue now being raised obviously
is put in context by virtue of the fact that we did present that report on March
17, and what he just said was never raised at that point in time. If there were
issues and problems, and if they were serious, I am sure they would have been
reported and made public at that point in time.
Contrary to that, the reaction to the very clear messages that we left in
Ottawa were compliments for the whole group of us, because we had left very
clear messages in Ottawa, not compromised by anyone at all. We left messages
that our report was indeed comprehensive, that we did not expect the report to
be cherry-picked. We did say, though, that we are not completely unreasonable
people and that if they had issues with any of our recommendations we would
gladly come back and discuss them with them; that is they had some problems with
any of our recommendations, we would come back and discuss them with them. And
we did say, quite clearly, that closure was absolutely not an option.
Now, that was the presentation that was made. We all made our own
contributions to that because we were all equal members. That was the message
that was presented in a united front.
If, in fact, what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting today was true,
I am sure that somebody in that group would have taken the offence that he tries
to suggest was taken by it now, a month-and-a-half later, and would have made it
public at the time. Nobody who came back from that meeting ever said that anyone
who was there did anything other than make a very great case on behalf of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I am sure that maybe the Leader of the Opposition might want to reconsider
and revisit his commentary right now, because again we are trying to move
forward. I have been working with Minister Byrne's office again today to try
to find out how we work with him to get the decision reversed, how we deal with
the compensation issues -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - and how we deal with the best interests of the people
involved.
I think it is kind if sad, actually, that someone would now suggest that
there were some comments made six weeks ago that were never reported then, so
they could not have been too serious or they would have been in the public
domain long before this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that the Premier has not
denied that he said that, and I can tell him, straight form the heart, as other
members will tell him the same thing, we did not make it an issue because we did
not want to embarrass you, we did not want to embarrass the Province, and we
wanted to make sure that our position was unified and we were all together. That
is why we did not do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: And that is the truth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to address the Chair and to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would suggest that those who want to know check with the other members of
that all-party committee to see if what I am saying is accurate.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier crossed the line yesterday, and I will not allow him
to blame me for his own shortcomings at that meeting.
Mr. Speaker, let's talk about what led up to all of this. Would the Premier
confirm that within days of news breaking about a potential closure of the
codfishery last November, he acknowledged that there is, quote: A very real
probability that these fisheries will close in the 2003 season, and that he was,
quote: very troubled by the absence of any reference to compensation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, the Leader of the Opposition may want to live in the past. If he wants
it clear, I did not say what he said. The messages - again I repeat them - that
we gave on March 17 were crystal clear, and nobody had to bite their lips or
bite their tongue because everybody, as a matter of fact, afterwards were very,
very congratulatory as to how we had all conducted ourselves. We left the
messages.
Let me repeat them again because we are looking at how we move forward from
here constructively. The messages were clear, that we believe we had come
together on a historic basis and made a very comprehensive report - the most
comprehensive ever done. We indicated that we did not want the federal
government to be cherry-picking because we had issues in there that were
contentious in our own Province, like closing the recreational cod fishery. We
knew we wanted to get the message across that we did not want a federal minister
to choose that recommendation because we had made it and ignore all of the rest.
We did not want cherry-picking.
We also indicated though that if, in fact, you had issues with some of these
things because we knew they were going to receive other advice from their own
conservation council that was not yet available, and if there was contradictory
information coming forward from other sources that led them to have issues with
our report, come back and talk to us. Now, the downfall was they got the
contradictory recommendations from other sources and did not come back to talk
to us, despite the efforts of our chairman, Mr. Efford, to meet, our fisheries
ministers to meet, others asking to meet. They did not meet. They made the
decisions themselves.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Finally, we did say quite clearly, that closure was
absolutely not acceptable; and that is our position again today, Mr. Speaker. So
we would like to move forward and see how we deal with these issues now that the
worst possible decision has been taken, and it is dead wrong.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in my second question to the Premier I read
out quotations and attributed them to the Premier. He said he did not say them.
Those quotations came directly from his ministerial statement to this House on
November 21, 2002.
Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that this government did not handle
the entire issue very well. The Premier decided to play politics by formally
writing the Members of Parliament and asking them to resign, and three days
later suggested in the media that it was merely symbolic when he realized he had
made a mistake in fact.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain why, prior to his one party, not
an all-party trip to Ottawa, he broke ranks again with the all-party committee
and tried to embarrass all of our federal MPs by publicly calling for their
resignation from caucus?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition wants to live in the past because he
has no idea of what to do in the future - has no real notion, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition did not know
what to do about it on Thursday, did not know what to do about it on Friday.
They are in the media today, himself and his fisheries critic, contradicting
each other; giving two different reasons as to why they did or did not say
something in the days after. Wondering what to do, how to get some attention.
Notice in the commentary reported in local media today, no concern expressed
about what to do for the people, concern expressed about how do we get some
attention in the media, Mr. Speaker. Publicly reported in the Province today,
and they know it.
Now the issue is: Where do we go from here? What we have been doing is trying
to work with Minister Byrne's office. The three federal MPs, that I have
talked to, understand the notion of drawing attention to an issue by doing
something like calling for resignation. I have met with them since. They have
done exactly what we wanted done. They have come out and said the decision is
wrong. They have had an emergency debate in the House of Commons. They have
asked for the reversal. It took that Leader of the Opposition four or five days
to figure what his position would be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: They have made their position crystal clear. I am glad
now to see that the Leader of the Opposition wants to work with us to have the
decision reversed, to improve the compensation, to have the EI extended, to have
the licence buyouts considered -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - to have the early retirement considered, to have a
diversification program and to have the science capability moved to Newfoundland
and Labrador. I am delighted to have his support in trying to move forward and
accomplish something for the people who are unfortunately, very negatively
impacted right now, 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.
Mr. Speaker, prior to his meeting with the Prime Minister, in which he failed
to convince the federal government to reopen our fishery, on a radio call-in
program the Premier called the Prime Minister - and I quote him - a disaster.
Does the Premier really believe that publicly calling the Prime Minister, the
one person who can reverse this decision, a disaster, is that an effective
negotiating strategy? Or is that just another part of his decision to try and
turn the fishery into an election issue?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not recall using that particular phrase, but I can tell you this. I can
tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that in Newfoundland and Labrador when we are
elected as representatives for the people of our Province, our job is to stand
up for our people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
understand every single member in here believes is the wrong decision. The Prime
Minister is the person at the head of that government who, in meeting with me,
indicated it was a decision of the minister - I am not going to get involved, it
was not a Cabinet decision. It was a decision made by the minister, and that
minister is the one responsible for it. You will have to go back and see if that
minister is going to change his or her mind.
Our focus and attention will be on that in the next little while, Mr.
Speaker, and if the Leader of the Opposition wants to stand up and be an
ministers and say they are doing a great job, then he can do that. I do not
think, on this issue, and I do not believe anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador
thinks they have done a great job.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: I think they have done a very poor job because they have
made the worst possible decision they could possibly make, and we will do
anything we possibly can to have it reversed and to have it done in the right
fashion for our people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier went to Ottawa to meet with federal MPs, federal
ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, and he
successfully, personally, offended each and every one of them prior to his
visit. He even insulted the next Prime Minister by taking a cheap shot at all
Liberal leadership delegates - candidates, I am sorry.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier acknowledge that he harmed his ability to
negotiate with John Manley when he stated, in reference to Sheila Copps, John
Manley and Paul Martin, that he is, quote, "...very suspect of those kind
of things, people coming around looking for a vote and trying to make you
believe that they understand and they care and they would do something
different."
That is what you said, Premier. That is your quote. You should look in the
mirror. Do you think that harmed your ability to negotiate with any of those
people, personally offending and personally insulting them?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind hon. members that they ought to address the Chair when they are
speaking in this Chamber, and not individual members.
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted to see the Leader of the Opposition being so helpful today.
Yesterday, his whole plea was: I want to be helpful. I do not want to enter into
a political debate. I would like to put politics aside and see if we can do
something for the people impacted.
What a difference twenty-four hours makes, Mr. Speaker. What a difference in
twenty-four hours. Here was a person yesterday wanting to suggest that politics
did not matter, they just wanted to do something for the people impacted. The
questions today show how concerned the Leader of the Opposition is about the
people who are down in the offices, the people out in their homes wondering
about their future, the people who want to know what we are going to do about
trying to get this decision reversed. That is what they wanted to know. That is
what they were criticizing me for yesterday when I was clearing the air and
making sure that everybody knew that we did not have the support. A day later,
no interest in the people, and if he wants to start apologizing and saying that
it is okay by me if people come to Newfoundland and Labrador, using Sheila Copps
as the example, who came to Newfoundland and Labrador, used to be the Deputy
Prime Minister, sits in the Cabinet, and made a speech about the Gander Weather
Office and said: If I become the leader, if I were the leader today -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
- and this was shortly after the announcement was made to close it - if I
were the leader I would not have closed Gander, I would have moved the full
national weather forecasting service to Gander.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: If you think that is something that you would look at
without some cynicism then you can explain that to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, I remind hon. members that addressing this Chamber ought to be done
through the Speaker and not speaking to individuals in the Chamber.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister, in her Budget Speech, said that government would eliminate the
consolidated deficit of $300 million between 2004-2005 and 2007-2008, and the
minister publicly said since that, Mr. Speaker, that they have an effective
plan. The Toronto-Dominion Bank said that government has provided no clear plan
on how that goal can be achieved.
I want to ask the minister: Will she tell this House, where is the four-year
plan to meet that commitment of a $300 million deficit reduction?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would be happy to speak about it, and I would say to the member opposite
that he did not comment on what the representative from Moody's said when he
believed that we were able to achieve our plan. I think that it is an important
piece of it as well.
The plan was to achieve continued growth. The plan was, when I spoke about it
on Budget day, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, and I will say it again
today, and the plan still is that we will continue to grow our economy. Just
yesterday, in this House of Assembly, I presented a Ministerial Statement that
spoke about unprecedented growth for this Province leading the country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I know that is disturbing to the members opposite
because our economy is strong, but we also said yesterday, and we will say it
again, there are areas in our Province where we need to continue to work even
harder because we recognize it is not even all throughout the Province.
Our plan is solid, and there is one other very important point, Mr. Speaker.
Every year for the last five years, we have consecutively grown our own
provincial economy by over $100 million. That is the plan, Mr. Speaker, to
continue to grow our economy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is only fair to ask, in this House, when the minister makes a
statement she is going to cut $300 million over a four-year period, and the
investment community and financial institutions are questioning that we have not
seen a plan, I ask the minister to table in this House and to put forth to the
people of this Province where that $300 million deficit is going to be slashed,
by putting forth your projected revenues and expenditures over that four-year
period. That is the only way, Mr. Speaker, that can be done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are finally starting to see the Marshall plan here
today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, just listen to the question. The only people talking
about cut and slash are the people opposite. They will never hear it over here,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty talking about how we
continue to grow our economy. We have made it very clear in the Budget Speech.
We have made it very clear at every opportunity. We will continue to grow the
economy. We have already put in place an 8 per cent and 5 per cent reduction
into our own departments, and if you are going to talk to me about finding the
word slash in my Budget Speech, well, I was not the person who read slash. It is
not there. You are the one who is going to cut and slash. You are the one doing
the Marshall plan. She is the one who wants to hire more accountants than social
workers. All will be seen, I am sure. You point out to me the word, slash. It is
not there.
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.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word "redundant" means, not
needed or that which can be omitted without any loss or significance.
As we are all aware, the Premier is responsible for the appointment of deputy
ministers. I would like to ask the Premier today, how does he justify recently
declaring a deputy minister's position redundant and then, within a few days,
appoint another person to that very same position, which has a salary of
$130,068?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I expect he will give more details, because I do not know what he is talking
about yet.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St.
Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks, a deputy minister
vacated his position within government. When a position is vacated in the public
service, that person normally receives a twenty-week severance package.
I would like to ask the Premier why the government would pay an additional
sixty-two week redundancy package on top of the twenty-week severance package,
totally $297,000, when the position was filled a few days later?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You will have to give me some details. I will find out some time, I guess. I
guess, at some point in time, he will tell me exactly what issue he is talking
about.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia
& St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, there is tremendous frustration in this
Province today. Many industries are finding it difficult to keep afloat. Many
people are forced to go on social assistance, and in several cases do not know
where the next dollar is coming from.
I would like to ask the Premier to come clean and tell us, how does he
justify deeming a deputy minister's position redundant while the position is
filled immediately within a few day, and how does he justify putting $297,000 in
someone's pocket as a farewell gift?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, if he would like to tell me what he is talking about, I will gladly
provide the answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After the negative decision a week ago regarding the closure of the Gulf and
Northern cod fisheries, the Premier and his delegation went to Ottawa. I want to
ask the Premier whether he made known to the Prime Minister, or the Minister of
Fisheries, or others in Ottawa, any timetable for a change in this decision?
Does he have a timetable by which he expects this decision to be reversed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the issues that we raised, being, a request to reverse the
decision outright and have a limited viable fishery in line with the
recommendations of the Conservation Council, an extension of EI benefits for
those people impacted due to the cod closure, as well as those with respect to
ice conditions causing other fisheries to be late starting, improved
compensation involving license buyouts and early retirement options, a long-term
diversification program, more details along the lines of what Minister Byrne had
been indicating is available, and, as well, the relocation of the science
capability, on the more immediate ones we asked that since the issues are all
very well known we would hope to have a definitive reply by the end of this
week, if at all possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the Premier, then, on behalf of the fishery workers of this
Province, and particularly the fish harvesters who hope to participate in this
fishery: What are the Premier's next steps?
Last fall, when the Premier was disagreeing with the plan of the Prime
Minister to sign on to the Kyoto Accord, he talked about defying Ottawa. Does
the Premier plan to defy Ottawa on the issue of the closure of this fishery?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We will consider any and all alternatives that will get the right response
for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If we take extraordinary or exceptional
actions, we will announce and explain them fully to the people of the Province
and expect endorsement and support.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
Minister, the Employment Insurance Program was implemented to help Canadians
provide income to their families when they were unable to access employment
income due to reasons beyond their control, reasons such as being laid off due
to shortage of work, and especially between seasonal jobs. Minister, hundreds of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are without an income today. Due to ice
conditions off our coast, fishermen are unable to fish, plant workers are unable
to process.
I ask the minister if he would inform the House today if those unemployed
workers will have their EI extended so they may be able to provide for their
families when conditions like these exist due to no reasons of their own?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is well known public knowledge that the government has already
made representation to hon. Jane Stewart some weeks ago requesting an extension
of the EI.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, the EI account in Ottawa today has in excess of $36 billion
accumulated, money that was paid out by those very same Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who are without an income today.
I ask the minister if he has met with his federal cousin, the hon. Jane
Stewart and what action he will take, as our representative right here in this
Province, to look after those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are without
an income due to no fault of their own.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As I said earlier, government had made representation some weeks ago
requesting that the hon. minister extend the EI benefits to the fisher people in
the Province. He talks about the $39 billion. My understanding was it is
somewhere around a $43 billion surplus. They also have responsibility for the
EAPD, which is Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities. We are
making representation to them on that. We are constantly making representation
to the federal government so that they can help us to help the people of the
Province. I can give you an example that the federal government will say that
they contribute 50 per cent of the support towards employability for people with
disabilities. Myself, the Department of HRE, and the Department Health spend
some $11 million helping people with disabilities, while the federal government
represents 4.1 per cent, which is a total of $15 million. So, they say they pay
50 per cent. When I went to school that is a long way from 50 per cent.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: We are continuously making representation to the
federal government to try and help us help the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We do not live in a bubble here. We understand exactly what is going
on in the Province. That is why we continuously make representation to the
federal government so they can do their share also.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Final Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, the federal Auditor General was on the radio
today talking about this excess in the EI program going into general revenues,
going in as taxes rather than as income to help fishermen and plant workers and
other unemployed individuals. I ask the minister if he would give us a straight
answer and let us know what he has done to help those Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who find themselves in this desperate situation today?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is obvious that the hon. member opposite is listening but he is not
hearing. I have been telling you that we are continuously making representation
to the federal government to help them provide their share to help the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you upfront that whether it is a $40
billion surplus in the EI fund, it is a shame on the federal government that
they are not coming forward to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: It is easy to portray us as the poorest province in
Canada with the most GDP, but when you look at it, there are some 469,000 people
in the Province of Ontario on income support - almost the whole population of
Newfoundland and Labrador. So we are continuously making representations to the
federal government. We want them to help us. They have an obligation to help us.
Mr. Speaker, they should be helping us. We do not control - if I were the
federal minister, we would be doing a lot better than what we are doing now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again today to present yet another petition from my district on the
road conditions throughout the Province. Many members in this House have done so
in the last couple of weeks from all over my district. This particular petition
I will read to the House comes from the Green Bay side of my district, from
Little Bay to Beachside. It says:
WHEREAS the road from Little Bay turnoff to Little Bay was paved
approximately thirty years ago. And since that time very little has been done to
upkeep the road. The road is in a deplorable condition.
We, the undersigned residents of the electoral District of Baie Verte,
petition the government to repave the road from Little Bay turnoff to Beachside.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to stand in this House to present petitions on
behalf of people in our districts who are very upset with the road conditions
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Everyday, especially this spring in
particular, Mr. Speaker - especially this spring - when we talk about a road
here similar to the La Scie Highway that we talked about a little while ago. It
is thirty years old. The road into Little Bay and Beachside is some thirty years
old, and in many cases, Mr. Speaker, are worse than some of the gravel roads. As
we continue to speak about the road conditions throughout this Province,
throughout all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have to remind the
government again that there are some over 900 kilometres of gravel roads still
left in Newfoundland and Labrador, and over 1,500 kilometres of pavement that is
thirty years old or older.
Mr. Speaker, most people know that the best you can hope for out of a paved
road is twenty-five years and we still have 1,500 kilometres of pavement in
these districts that is thirty years old. Anybody who lives in a part of this
Province who sees that old pavement can tell you that it is many times worse
than even going over some of the gravel roads, and they are in some pretty
deplorable conditions.
Mr. Speaker, day after day and year after year we see this government spend
some $18 million to $20 million on roads in this Province, when the minister
himself has also said they need something like $340 million this year to keep up
with it. You do not have to be a financial wizard to figure out that sooner or
later, Mr. Speaker, they are not catching up with the real problem in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, and I make note of this today because there were some students
here from my district who travel on buses every single day. I sat on one of
those buses with students one day just to get the feel of what it was like to go
around on these terrible roads, especially on gravel roads. Some of the students
said again today, imagine getting up every morning - lots of times it is hard to
encourage students to stay in school as it is, but to get up every morning and
face a bus ride and those conditions with some of these buses in very bad
condition, it is hard, Mr. Speaker. It is hard for parents and the students to
encourage themselves everyday to get back on that road and to go to school every
single day.
That is why our priority, Mr. Speaker, for this part of my district and
throughout my district for gravel roads and poor paved roads that are in such
deplorable conditions that this should be a priority of any government. It is a
basic need. They are not asking for double-lane highways that went through Grand
Falls or the Outer Ring Road. They are looking for a simple - at least an
upgraded road. Some of them are not even asking for paving anymore, just looking
to have it upgraded. That is what they are looking for. It is not some grand
scheme, Mr. Speaker, or asking for something grand and gigantic to be built.
They are asking for a simple, basic necessity of a decent road to drive over. I
do not think that is too much to ask for, Mr. Speaker. That is why I continue to
stand everyday on behalf of people in my district to say that road conditions
have gone too far. It is time that we really address the real problem and get a
long-term plan, not just from April to April when we looking to the minister to
try to get a few crumbs, a few kilometres of pavement to take care of little
bits of roads.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude by saying this, it is
important. It is something that should be a priority and there should be
something done with the road conditions in our Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: If the hon. members would not mind, somebody missed there,
going down through the Routine Proceedings. We have at least one minister who
wanted to table a document. I wonder if you would mind going back to that
proceeding, Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees, and we could
pick up again with petitions.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, when any minister wants to table a document in
the House of Assembly (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: We will revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special
Committees.
The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to table invoices for government furniture and equipment
which was in the home of Beaton Tulk, former minister, Deputy Premier, and
Premier of the Province in accordance with the previous request made by the
Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. These assets have since been returned
to government.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of some
10,415 residents of Western Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, the petition is in the format prescribed by the House and it has
been approved and seen by the Table.
The petition reads as follows:
WHEREAS the federal government has transferred $42.6 million to be used to
purchase diagnostic equipment for health care; and
WHEREAS half of the 5,000 referrals for MRI scans in St. John's are from
outside the St. John's area; and
WHEREAS placing additional MRI services outside of St. John's would bring
this service closer to the people who need it and will reduce long waiting
lists, travel time and expenses for all involved; and
WHEREAS Western Memorial Regional Hospital in Corner Brook serves the largest
catchment area outside of St. Johns;
THEREFORE the undersigned residents of Western Newfoundland and Labrador
resolve that Magnetic Resonance Imaging equipment must be purchased by the
provincial government and established at Western Memorial Hospital, Corner
Brook, to serve the greatest good for the largest number of people, and as in
duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this petition is signed by some 10,415
petitioners. All the more remarkable, the initiative for this particular
petition only started at a meeting in Corner Brook on April 23, and on April 30
it was presented to me with 10,415 names. I am informed today that another
petition, with well over another 10,000 names, will be delivered to me and will
be available for presentation in this House on Monday.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of an MRI arose out of the 2003 Budget wherein it was
announced that we would be spending an additional $26 million for medical and
diagnostic equipment. Further, it was announced in the Budget 2003 that this
particular equipment would be purchased and placed in accordance with the
recommendations received after consultation with the medical community. We will
note that in the Budget commentary, there was reference made to a mobile and/or
a fixed place type of MRI. No decision was made in the Budget presentation. That
was left to the recommendations of the medical community.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that yesterday, April 30, that
particular consultation was held here in St. John's, and I will be consulting
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MERCER: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MERCER: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, the meeting was held
yesterday. I have not yet had an opportunity to speak to the doctors from
Western Newfoundland who participated, but I expect to see them this week, this
week being tomorrow, on Friday, and we will be able to report further in the
House when I present the second petition.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament
assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador, humbly sheweth;
WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province in
Canada that does not have a downtown library in its capital city; and
WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the worst rates of
illiteracy in the country; and
WHEREAS the citizens and visitors of downtown St. John's require a downtown
library for access to literature, the Internet, and a place to develop their
literacy skills; and
WHEREAS the children of downtown St. John's need access to books; and
WHEREAS the Province and the city used to provide the citizens and visitors
of St. John's with a downtown library;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to return the downtown
library to the citizens and visitors of St. John's and to take whatever action
is necessary to ensure that the downtown library has adequate hours of
operation, adequate staffing, and adequate books.
Mr. Speaker, I presented a petition similar to this just prior to the Easter
break in the House of Assembly, and I said at the time to the Minister of
Education and the Minister of Finance that I am not demanding today that they
put a library downtown. What I was demanding was that they conduct a study into
the viability of putting a library in downtown St. John's versus the cost of
illiteracy that would result by not having a library in the downtown area.
Many of the children who live in the downtown area do not have proper
transportation, do not have access to transportation, and are not able to afford
monthly bus passes. Many of the children who live in the downtown area are from
areas that suffer from the highest rates of illiteracy in the city. Those
families would do very well by having a library in the downtown area. Those
children would be advantaged by having a library in the downtown area, by having
Internet access, by having access to books, by having access to librarians and
clerks and assistants who could assist them; and with the news today that
teacher-librarians are being cut in the Avalon East School Board, it seems even
more appropriate that this petition be presented.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this petition on behalf of the undersigned
and I ask that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance and the
Premier take consideration into putting a library in the downtown area of St.
John's.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a large number of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and particularly those who have been calling
my office over the last six months in particular. Just let me read the prayer of
the petition, Mr. Speaker. It says:
WHEREAS the cost of therapies for Multiple Sclerosis are very expensive,
ranging in cost from $12,300 to over $21,000 annually; and
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province that
has not created MS drug specific financial eligibility criteria; and
WHEREAS in order to qualify for treatment costs individuals in Newfoundland
and Labrador have to be eligible for Income Support Drug Program or the Senior
Citizens Drug Subsidy Plan; and
WHEREAS most people in Newfoundland and Labrador with MS are being denied
adequate funding for the four breakthrough medications that have been clinically
proven to reduce the frequency and severity of MS attacks and slow the
progression of the disability;
THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to establish a separate program for financial coverage for MS therapies that
would give all residents of this Province equal access.
Mr. Speaker, the uniqueness about this particular petition that is different
than other petitions that have been presented in this House with respect to the
provincial drug program, the medications in question here are medications that
have already been approved for the provincial drug formulary. The provincial
government already has these drugs covered in its provincial plan. It is
available to people, as the petition indicates, who are getting their
prescription drugs through the provincial program and through the seniors'
program.
This is a situation here, Mr. Speaker, where individuals who have this
dreaded disease find themselves having to deplete all of their resources: their
RRSPs, their savings. Anything they may have in liquid assets have to be spent
before they are able to get any access. The problem then becomes, the income
threshold to be eligible for the Prescription Drug Program is such that if any
individual is working in this Province today, they very quickly will have
exhausted all of the lifetime benefits available in all group plans that are
currently underwritten, but they are left with a situation where they make too
much money to be eligible for the provincial plan, but do not make enough money
to cover the cost of their prescription drugs. So, they are left in a situation
where they are being discriminated against.
We are not talking about a large number of people. There is only a very
select number of people with MS who are eligible candidates to have these drug
therapies actually work, so that minimizes and reduces the number of MS patients
who will actually be eligible. Some of those are already covered by the
provincial drug program.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just by leave to conclude, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you to the hon. House Leader.
Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, we are asking government in this case here, on
behalf of those small number of MS patients out there who find themselves
falling between the cracks, to create an equity, to fix the inequity that
currently exists and provide these individuals with the same access to
much-needed medication as is already provided in the provincial drug program.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to present this petition
on behalf on these individuals.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I rise today to bring forth a petition regarding the establishment
of a library in the downtown area. I have been asked to present this petition on
their behalf.
It reads that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province
in Canada that does not have a downtown library in its capital city, that the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the worst rates of literacy in the
country; and
WHEREAS the citizens and visitors of downtown require a downtown library for
access to literature, the Internet and a place to develop their literacy skills;
and
WHEREAS the children of downtown St. John's need access to books; and
WHEREAS the Province and city used to provide the citizens and visitors of
St. John's with a downtown library;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly return the downtown
library to the citizens and visitors of St. John's, and to take whatever
action is necessary to ensure that the downtown library has adequate hours of
operation, adequate staffing, and certainly an adequate supply of books.
Mr. Speaker, this petition brought to my attention, and it is certainly a
petition that I take great pride in presenting because the need, of course, has
been established by the very fact that these people have taken the time to put
their name on a petition requesting that the government - and certainly, as my
colleague a little bit earlier indicated, it is not a question now of jumping
ahead and doing it - to bring about a study to see again the particulars: the
need for it, the number of people it will serve, the cost of it, and the hours
of operation.
Mr. Speaker, it is most important that the realization being if we are to
want our literacy rates to increase, or illiteracy rates to decrease, the
citizens of our particular Province need accessability to resources in order for
them to be able to maintain their literacy skills and certainly increase their
literacy skills.
The downtown area in particular, Mr. Speaker, is an area that has - in all my
recollections - had access to a library, a library that was always available,
that was used extensively, and I guess largely because of financial cutbacks was
phased out in light of the larger regional libraries.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that there is a need, that we
call upon the Minister of Education, and we certainly call upon the Minister of
Finance, to look at -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: Just to clue up.
- the feasability of placing a library in downtown St. John's in the hope
that it can be realized.
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. The petition reads: To the House
of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened. The
petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS the main road to the community of Winter Brook is in deplorable
condition and in desperate need of paving;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to pave the approximately three kilometres of road leading to and including part
of the community of Winter Brook.
And as in duty bound your petitions will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is just one in a series of petitions that I have presented
here in this House of Assembly asking the government to include this
section of
roadway in this year's capital works budget. I understand that the
announcements of road upgrades and repairs - the capital announcement - will be
made within the next very, very short period of time. I guess it is timely to
present this particular petition again from the residents in Winter Brook asking
that the road work that was started there ten years ago now be allowed to be
completed.
Back some ten years ago there was a road leading to Winter Brook. The main
road, the only road, Mr. Speaker, was upgraded and at that particular time they
were told by this government that they should not expect their road to paved in
that same fiscal year because it was not something that government did. They did
not go and upgrade roads and pave them in the same year. They needed some time
for the gravel to settle and for the bed to form. That is what they were told by
this government, by the member of the day who sat on that government side, I
might add. Mr. Speaker, ten years later they are still waiting for their road to
be paved.
A few years ago, I took the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,
the Member for Humber Valley, when he was the minister at the time, and went
down and met with the residents of Winter Brook. They brought forward their
concerns to him. Two years ago, I took another Minister of Works, Services and
Transport to Winter Brook, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue. At that
particular time, there was a commitment made that they would have their road
started, that we would start paving their road. We did two kilometres that year,
which included mostly the main part of Winter Brook. Last year, we were
fortunate enough to get another two kilometres for that particular road. So we
included the
section to Jamestown Lumber and included part of the community of
Winter Brook again to take in a number of houses that existed near the
community. Mr. Speaker, there is three kilometres of road that needs to be paved
now to connect those two projects together. If we could get -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up, if I could?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if we could see those three kilometres of
road paved this year, the community of Winter Brook would then enjoy a road
comparable to what most people have been enjoying in this Province for the past
twenty-five or thirty years.
The plea is simple, Mr. Speaker. All they are asking for is that their
section of roadway be included in this year's capital works budget and that
the Liberal government would see fit to spend the amount of money needed to
upgrade - not upgrade, to pave, because the road is already upgraded - to pave
that particular
section of road.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, would like to present a petition on behalf of several residents in my
district, notably the residents of St. Mary's Bay. The prayer of the petition
reads as follows:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament
assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to accept the following
prayer:
We, the undersigned citizens of St. Mary's Bay Centre area hereby draw your
attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route
90 St. Mary's Bay;
WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of
the Highways Safety Act to protect its citizens not only from commuters but also
from unsafe highway; and
WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority
of any government;
THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding
to carry out the much-needed repairs to Route 90;
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I stand here and present this petition, one of many
I have presented here on behalf of the people of the district in relation to
road conditions. There are many reasons why roads need to be improved: notably
the fact that we are trying to develop a tourism industry in our area, and
certainly for commuters of the area who travel back and forth. As most people
know now, much of what people need in relation to medical, financial and other
issues that they have are dealt with in the greater city, the greater area here.
People travel back and forth from St. Mary's Bay on a continuous basis.
The number one concern that has been raised with me, as the MHA for the area,
is the situation as it relates to safety on the highways. We have now, over the
past number of years, amalgamation of the schools in that area. Now that all
students from the outlying communities are travelling into St. Mary's and into
St. Catherine's, following over the road, the safety of these children on the
buses - when they have to swerve away from holes that are in the pavement, it is
certainly creating a very serious safety issue in relation to the transport of
those students.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to several of the ambulance drivers in the
area and certainly they have a major, major concern. Over the past couple of
months we have been without a doctor in St. Mary's, and with an aging
population as in most parts of rural Newfoundland, once again a lot of the
situations are brought in here to St. John's to the hospitals, and the safety
issue for those people traveling, especially in those emergency vehicles, such
as ambulances, and in fire trucks, Mr. Speaker, is a major concern.
Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Bonavista South just noted, the minister is
supposed to announce in the next number of days some roadwork for the Province,
and we hope that he finds it within his budget to certainly take care of some of
the concerns and the conditions of the roads in my district. We look forward to
some positive response from the minister on that, and certainly look forward to
presenting any more petitions that come forward from the people.
Road conditions are a major issue in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's,
as they are in all other districts of the Province, I am sure. Mr. Speaker, I
hope that the minister will find some money so that the needed work and the
needed repairs are carried out as soon as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, would like to present a petition today on behalf of the residents in
my district, with respect to roads. The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative
Session convened:
The petition of the undersigned residents of Noggin Cove, in the electoral
District of Bonavista North, Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS the gravel road and previously paved road in Noggin Cove is in
deplorable condition and is in desperate need of upgrading and paving.
THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
more particularly of the community of Noggin Cove hereby petition you to upgrade
and pave the road during the construction season of 2003.
And as in duty bound you petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, the road to Noggin Cove, I say again, has to be among the worst
in the Province. Part of the road in Noggin Cove has never been paved and the
other
section between Carmanville and Frederickton was upgraded in 1972 and
paved in 1973, thirty years ago. This
section of road is probably worse than
what the gravel road is at certain times of the year.
Three weeks ago, the gravel road was so bad in Noggin Cove that a local
resident, Mr. Lester Sheppard, had to modify a tree farmer machine and drag it
over the road until the road was made passable. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most
of the Cabinet Ministers and other government members should be quite familiar
with the road in Noggin Cove after traveling over it many times last summer
during the by-election.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation to include the road in question in this year's roads upgrading
and paving program.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, the continuation of the speech by the
hon. Member for Ferryland, to move that this House approves in general the
budgetary policy of the government.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: I just want to say before the hon. member speaks, that the
sponsorship is moving slowly on this side.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That does not surprise me one bit. Knowing the makeup of that side of the
House, that is very much in-line. Very much in-line, I might add.
No, I cannot support, I might say, the budgetary policy of this government. I
cannot support it at all. They should not be too surprised because the minister
stood in her place today in this House and could not tell us the plan to slash
the $300 million she talked about on page 12 of this Budget. She said starting
next year, not this year now - there is an election this year by the way. There
has to be an election this fiscal year. She said: Next year we will start and
slash $300 million. We are going to take $300 million from the budget, and we
have an effective plan in the public. She said: In the public, we have an
effective plan.
Toronto-Dominion Group said: The government does not have a plan. They have
not seen any plan on how they are going to do that. How are you going to take
out $75 million next year; the next year, it will be $150 million; the next
year, $225 million; and then $300 million. So they get back the $300 million
over four years - it is $300 million, plus $225 million, plus $75 million, plus
$150 million. That is a significant amount of money. That is $750 million. So
over four years it is going to be a $750 million accumulative amount basically,
and they have no plan. In other words, trust us. Then ask us to stand here in
this House and support a budget that this government cannot even explain.
I asked a question on the Budget and I almost became despondent over it. I
guess I almost went into a withdrawal mood. They could not even answer my first
question on the Budget in this House. I asked her to explain what she was
factoring in when she was looking at depreciation on the net additions of
Tangible Capital Assets. The minister could not tell me that, how that is
factored in on the accrual basis of this Budget. What is the point of standing
up in the House and asking questions? The minister cannot give an answer to it.
She could not tell us. How did you calculate the Tangible Capital Assets? What
is included? What are the net additions for this fiscal year? What is the
depreciation on those? Those items, the minister could not tell us the answers.
Today in this House, the minister could not give us the answer. She could not
tell us the plan. In fact, she read a statement in the House yesterday. She
stated that Stats Canada reported in 2002 the GDP of this Province grew by 13.4
per cent.
I am going to talk for a while on what GDP is in a sense, and how it is not
the real indicator, the only indicator, at all. I am glad the minister, or
hopefully the minister is listening there. When she stands in her place sometime
in debate in this House - she will get an opportunity before this session to
stand and outline her plan. I am looking forward to that. I am looking forward
to seeing that.
It is tremendous to see Gross Domestic Product, tremendous to see a growth
here. We have led the country three out of five years and now, hopefully, two
out of the next two predicted or five out of seven. What is happening, we are
not equating into revenues proportionally for our Province. I have said that is
the big flaw. This Province has not generated the economic development that we
need to be able to sustain economic growth and put more disposable income in the
pockets of people. There is a growing gap between the graphs of personal
disposable incomes here and Gross Domestic Product, and that gap is widening
each year. I do have a graph, and I did a little bit of research and looked
back.
Back in 1989 when the PCs were in power in this Province, I might add that
personal disposable income was 80 per cent of Gross Domestic Product; 80 per
cent. In other words, if the economy grows you get more money in your pocket, 80
per cent correlation. Today, it is 59 per cent; down to 59 per cent. All through
the 1980s you could see the gap. You could see the graph, how it was widening.
The gap between personal disposable income and Gross Domestic Product is
widening.
For instance, by government's own figures, on page 5 of the Economy. The
book put out by the minister on Budget Day. When you look at that, you will see
on page 5 that the Gross Domestic Product in 2001, it is showing here the figure
was $13,761 million compared to personal disposable income of just over $9
billion. When you look at that figure, that is 66 per cent. Can you imagine, in
three years we have gone from personal disposal income 66 per cent of GDP, 2002
it went to 61 per cent of GDP, and 59 per cent now.
What was it in 1989, when the PCs were in power? It was 82 per cent in 1988.
It was over 80 per cent in 1989; over 80 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product.
What does that tell us? That tells us as our economy grows, the benefits - in
other words, the economic rent from the growth of that economy does not stay
here. It goes elsewhere, outside the Province. It is not putting money into the
pockets of people in our Province as the economy grows. Why is it so high? Well,
one the big reasons, Madam Speaker, is because of our offshore oil. Our offshore
oil is generating tremendous revenues but they are going to the Eastern Seaboard
of the United States, and Canada is a beneficiary and the United States.
We are not the principal beneficiaries of the Gross Domestic Product growth
that is occurring because of offshore oil and gas. We have not done our job in
developing it. I remember back at the initial stages saying, if we do not fight
at the early stages we will not get the spinoffs. Halifax is starting to take
over in areas from us. I remember at one point this government sat back - even
the engineers from Leatherhead, England were doing engineering, design work
there when it should have been demanded that the work be done here and we build
a base of skills here in our Province to employ people, and from that, fight for
others each step of the way. We are not seeing it. We are seeing a
deterioration.
In 2002, for example, it shows our personal disposable income was $9.5
billion and our GDP at market prices was $15.6 billion. If you look at that,
that is only 61 per cent and now it is 59 per cent. Can you imagine, in just
fourteen years with this government, we have seen when the GDP goes up that we
could count on 80-some per cent of personal disposable income for each dollar
generated on Gross Domestic Product.
What is happening today? Only 60 per cent - 59 per cent forecasted for this
year, for 2003, the year just ended, is going to go as disposable income. The
personal disposable income means individuals, collectively in this Province,
have more money in their pockets to spend on goods and services to create jobs,
whether it is in supermarkets, in stores, at car garages, car dealerships, in
regular clothing stores, you name it, all over, it is creating jobs. People are
spending in these places and we employ more people.
No doubt about it, the minister does stand up and talk about Gross Domestic
Product, but she hides the real message behind that. We have a very strong
message behind that. We have allowed our economy to falter. We have been asleep
at the switch while economic activity is taking on a whole new direction, and we
are not getting in on the ground level and getting benefits generated from that.
That is pretty sad here. We are having to see people from our Province go out to
other areas to work at jobs that are created by our resources here in our
Province. We have people who have had to leave this Province to go to the United
States, and other parts of the country, to work in areas that are operating on
raw materials produced here in our very own Province. That is not the way it
should be.
We have seen a lack, I would say, of vision, a lack of commitment to growing
the economy here by our Province, and all they spew out is a few positive good
note GDP things, and we will take them any day, no doubt about it. We will take
GDP growth. It is good to have it.
Look, in good times we cannot even grow the economy in any proportion to it.
What are we going to do in bad times? If we have a downturn, what is going to
happen? In good times, our deficit is climbing. We are told we have the greatest
- we led the country three out of five years - the next two years, and our
deficit is increasing. Is there something wrong when we are leading the country
at a phenomenal 13.4 per cent - that is phenomenal growth in GDP - and our
deficit goes up by hundreds of millions of dollars? There is something not
right. There is something not right when we are growing the economy in GDP, and
the only thing growing faster than GDP is our debt. There is something wrong.
There is something wrong, and we know what is wrong. The people of this Province
know what is wrong. The people at control are not using our resources wisely.
They are not managing our economy properly. They are not managing the finances
of this Province in a fiscally prudent manner. They are not doing it. They are
reacting instead of being proactive and setting the seeds for sustained growth.
They are dealing with hot spots, trouble spots when it happens, trying to deal
with these. What is going to be the next one? How do we deal with that? That is
going on and on and on.
If things are growing and it is so great, what is happening? Six years ago
our federal and provincial revenues that we take in here were 36 per cent of our
GDP. Last year, they were only 24 per cent of our GDP. Our GDP is going up and
our provincial revenues are not going up nearly as fast. They are losing ground.
What does that tell us? That the growth that occurred from this industry, from
the oil and gas primarily, is not equating into corresponding improvements in
revenues, both provincially or federally, particularly provincially is our
concern because that is our own provincial source of revenues and they are not
going up accordingly. We are not getting the return into the coffers of our
Province because of this GDP growth. We are not getting it back in taxation, in
HST and income tax. We are not getting it back in all the other levels of taxes
at a rate that is even close to the rate of growth in our Gross Domestic
Product.
What is wrong? Why isn't there? Why, since the early 1980s - I did not
research prior to that, but back since the 1980s - we have had a healthy
percentage of personal disposable income in comparison to GDP. It went through
the 1980s and I would assume it existed in the 1970s and back. I have not
researched beyond a twenty-three year period, but over that period we have seen
a healthy spread and a healthy growth in that. When did we see a downturn? We
started to see a downturn after this government came into power. That is when we
started to see it, and I am saying it is not coincidental. It is not
coincidental that happened. If it was, after fourteen years we should have seen
a marked improvement in that ratio and we have not seen an improvement in that
ratio. We have seen a reduction in that ratio. We have seen the situation get
worse.
Today, only 24 per cent of our revenue sources now - it is 24 per cent of
GDP, one-quarter, less than one-quarter of the GDP, when it is was 36 per cent
just six years ago. That tells us something that we are not doing here in our
Province. We are not doing something right here because it does not make sense.
How is the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian supposed to believe that our
economy is so great, we are outstripping everybody in the country, the banks and
everybody are telling us our GDP growth is phenomenal, the best in the country,
and people are still seeing their families leave this Province, get on an
airplane or in a car and leave this Province. People do not see that. Why are
there more hardships today in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Why are there
less people in communities in Newfoundland and Labrador today if things are so
great? Because we only get one little aspect of the economy, and that is only
thing that this government could hang its hat on. I can tell you, that is not
growth originated by this government and under no control of this government.
The offshore oil and gas was done by previous governments. It was discovered
by oil companies, the exploration. The gas out there was not a product of
government exploration. It was done from private industry. The private industry
job is: find it, explore, produce it, and market it. What is our job? Our job as
a government is to ensure that the jobs - that we get our share here, that we
participate in the profits, in other words, that we have a
part in getting the
maximum from the exploitation of our resource. That is our job, and that is
where we failed, and that is why personal disposable income is not there; it is
going down in comparison to GDP. That is why provincial revenues are going down
as a per cent of GDP. We have not done our job.
Companies have done their job, in their exploration and development of the
fields, and there have been agreements, of course, and the Province played a
role in that back in the 1980s, but we have done nothing; we have done
absolutely nothing. We just sit back and we talk about: the good times are here.
Well, people have not seen them, I can tell you. They have not seen the good
times from that. There are people out looking for jobs every day.
A person walked in today, I think, off the street, came to my office, not a
constituent, and was frustrated. Since 5:30 - I am frustrated that I cannot get
work, he indicated. He has just about had it,; and he has seen all this industry
and growth we are talking about. People have a job to comprehend and understand
why that is happening when we are being told in statements every day how great
things are.
We have enough here to half fill a library, with statements given by
governments over the past few years, since I have been Finance critic and I have
been in this House, trying to paint a bright story. They are not true. They are
absolutely, these stories, not true. The twist that government puts on them is
not true. They have to look a bit further.
What is our debt today? Our accrual budget shows a $666 million deficit just
in this fiscal year. Just a deficit in this fiscal year alone on an accrual
basis is projected to be this year $666 million. On a consolidated cash basis,
almost $300 million. It was on a cash basis only a quarter of that, less than a
quarter of that last year - a fifth of that, roughly. It is from about $280-some
million down to $60-some million. So we are looking at four-and-a-half times
anyway what it was last year on a cash basis. On an accrual basis, who knows? We
have not gotten the accrual basis yet from 2003 just ended; we do not know that.
We will get that, we hope, in September. It was complied last year in September
and it was not put into this House here until two months later. It was audited,
it was done through the Comptroller General's Office, audited by the Auditor
General, and we did not receive it. We would like to receive it, and the people
should receive it when it is ready and done, not when it is politically
expedient to put it in under the eve of Christmas or under some other big issue
to throw it out there, that will not get the attention it deserves. The
manipulation of releases to time around events so people will not tune into it.
People will get to tune into it because we will make sure that people are made
aware of those things.
That is one complied by her own department, by the minister's own
department, those public accounts. It was $450 million last year. The year
before, it was in the $300 millions. I think it was about $379 million, and $170
million or so the year before that. We have gone on this basis. We have hundreds
of millions of dollars more that we are spending than we are taking in each
year. Our debt is going up at an enormous rate, a tremendous rate. Our debt is
going up a lot faster than our GDP. I have always said that there is nothing
wrong with carrying a deficit, provided our economy is improving and we have a
plan to produce a balanced budget over a period of time. When an economy grows
an amount of revenue is generated, GDP is generated, and our debt can even hold.
It becomes less significant as time goes on, it becomes a smaller percent.
If you owed $20,000 today on a house and you owe $20,000 in twenty years
time, it will be a lot less. You won't owe as much in twenty years time as if
you owed $20,000 today. Twenty years ago if you owed $20,000 it was a lot of
money. Today if you owe $20,000, it is not as much money if you own a house.
That is why maintaining and controlling a debt is important. You don't have to
wipe out the debt, but I think we need to have a plan to get rid of deficits,
because if we can get rid of deficits, the debt level is not going to increase,
because the debt is an accumulation of deficits year after year.
It is rather disheartening and rather disappointing when we haven't seen
any improvement, a stagnation actually, and we have seen a stagnation in our
personal disposable income, very little improvement on a dollar basis. We have
seen a drastic deterioration as a percentage of our GDP.
They are the figures the minister should be standing in this House and
talking about, the personal disposable income, because that is how much money
people have at their disposal, to spend. What is the point of having $3,000 more
if it is taken back? We don't have the income. The only thing that relates to
people in terms of their standard of living is how much money they have at their
disposal. It doesn't matter what the GDP is. The GDP could hit the sky, but if
their personal disposable income does not increase they are no better off. In
fact, they will end up worse off. Those are the relative things we should be
talking about.
There are other factors in the economy to look at. Economic performance,
productivity in the work place and what is the productivity per unit in the work
place, are factors. There are numerous factors to look at. Employment is another
factor, the employment rate is another important factor in looking at how we are
performing. We are still the highest in unemployed people in the country, the
highest unemployment rate. Now, we are told that our GDP per capita surpasses
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Our GDP per capita
surpassed these other three provinces. We have higher now than the rest of the
Atlantic Provinces, but we are still going head over heels in debt and our
disposable incomes are not going up proportionately.
We have a problem here, we have a major problem. Banks are cognizant of that.
Bond rating agencies are cognizant of that. We got one increase last year
because the federal government made a commitment to put some stability into
social transfers, health, post-secondary education and so on, and it created a
little bit of stability and vaguely bumped us up with one of the rating agencies
a notch. They gave a warning, on the other hand. It wasn't because of our
fiscal performance, as the minister said, how strong we are doing. In fact, it
took some shots at it and talked about the tentative position we are in and the
unsustainability of what we are doing. The Bank of Montreal said the same thing,
in spite of that improved credit rating by one agency last year. They said what
we were doing is not sustainable, and they have a lot of concerns. So we are not
managing and we are being good trustees of the people's money. We are not
being good managers in taking care of people. I mean, that tells us, Madam
Speaker, what kind of economic diversification is going on in our Province
today.
Major financial institutions are expressing concern about it. I made
reference to money in people's pockets, it is going down (inaudible). When you
think that the GDP went up - the GDP went up by a billion dollars back in 1989
under a previous PC government. If it went up by a billion dollars, personal
disposable income went up by $800 million. Today, if GDP goes up by $1 billion,
personal disposable income only goes up by $590 million. That is $210 million
less in disposable income with the same basic increase in GDP compared at 1989
to today.
Where has the money gone? The money is gone in the pockets of people in the
United States and other parts of this country, not in the pockets of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is the role that we have to play. Our
role here should be to maximize the return from every industry to people. We
have to play tough to get our share. We should not be giving multinational,
multibillion dollar giants $20 million tax breaks, like we gave Inco. We should
not be giving them a $20 million tax break. Where is that money going? Where is
that $20 million going? Not in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
What percent of Inco is owned by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? A minuscule,
if any, of a minuscule little fraction of a thousand of 1 per cent at the most.
Maybe nothing, practically; not even registered. Does not even show up on the
radar.
Where is it going? It is going in the pockets of people in other parts of
this country and outside this country, and all over the world. That is where it
is going, that $20 million. We are allowing the gap to get so wide now between
personal disposable income and Gross Domestic Product, that we are getting close
now to the point where fifty cents out of every single dollar now that is
garnered in GDP is going to go outside this country and not even reflect on the
personal disposable income sheets of our Province. That is a sad commentary.
I say to the people here, back in 1989 we could expect 81 per cent - before
government changed - of GDP went in as personal disposal income. That is a
significant amount. Today, that equates on every billion dollars, $210 million
less going into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as personal
disposable income after forty years of Liberal government. The reason for that -
and I will say it again - is because we did not fight at the ground level to
generate the economic activity that is associated with those economic growth
adventures out there.
I only spoke with an individual yesterday, and I will pass casually to it,
there are industries here in this Province - the individual I spoke with employs
over 100 people who are involved with doing business outside of this country,
who are going to be severely affected because of Canada's role in Iraq. I will
not get into all the details because I do not want to identify and get involved
with any particular companies. Because of the federal government's lack of
attitude and the damage was done - and our leader said today, when some of the
remarks were made here around the provincial fishery issues, when the federal
people made the remarks, when Dhaliwal made the remark on the United States and
when this other minister made the remark, I think she called - No, a member of
the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, made the remark about Bush being a
moron. Was that the word? Or an idiot, I am not sure.
AN HON. MEMBER: Moron.
MR. SULLIVAN: Moron was the word. This word and nothing basically done.
Dhaliwal making a statement and nothing basically done.
MR. E. BYRNE: Another backbencher.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, another backbencher.
These things damage and hurt the Canadian economy. People making decisions on
contracts and so on, on a worldwide scale are impacted by this type of
behaviour. That is one of the reasons our leader was kind of disturbed when the
Premier our Province - and people make strong remarks, whether the Prime
Minister is a disaster, whatever the remarks to that extent. Those types of
remarks are personal. They show a lack of respect. It is hard to garner a
positive working relationship. You can attack them on policy. You can go after
them on policy. You can go after them on all of these areas, but do not render a
judgement on their mental ability or what ability they can do or perform. Do it
upon their stance on particular issues. That is why those things have an impact.
Those things hurt relationships and make them more difficult for us. We need to
work hard, be tough with the federal government, fight them every step of the
way, tooth and nail, on issues we believe are important, but keep it on a
professional level and one that has some merit and substance to it, not on an
individual basis.
Now the minister's statement - if you read that statement. When I read it
and I listened to her yesterday in this House, she said: The provincial
government has been aggressive in pursuing economic development opportunities
for our Province. Our plan is clear for the people to see. We have been
successful to the point where we now generate the majority of our provincial
revenues here at home. In other words, they are telling us we have been so
successful that we now take in more provincial revenues basically than we get
from the federal government. Well, that is another way to look at that, too. The
federal government has reduced revenues to our Province. They have come back in
their contribution. That is why we have moved ahead. That is one of the reasons.
I will not say it is the only reason. That is one of the reasons. Those
statements - some of them are not worth the paper they are written on because
they do not portray the real truth and the real facts about the economy of our
Province.
I asked the minister a simple question today, a very simple question today in
the House. I asked her - when she said in her Budget Speech, on page 12, that
they would eliminate over a four-year period that $300 million consolidated
deficit. Since then, I have heard the minister say that they have an effective
plan to do it. The Toronto-Dominion Group have said - and here is what they
said. I will take the exact words of them. They said, "The government
indicated that it would aim to eliminate its deficit gradually between fiscal
years 2004-05 and 2007-08 by targeting a modest $75 million per year, although
it provided no clear plan on how that goal could be achieved."
In other words, $75 million this year, next year it is another $75 million,
which is $150 million. Another $75 million then becomes $225 million, and the
last year there would be $300 million closed in that deficit then what it was
the previous years. That is $300 million.
I asked the minister: Would the minister tell us where that four-year plan is
to meet her commitment of a $300 million deficit reduction? She could not answer
it. She could not answer. All she said was increase revenue growth. Well, I can
tell you we have had increased revenue growth for the last number of years. We
have had increased revenue growth and we have had increased deficits. So, that
is not an answer. That is a wrong answer. That is not an answer that should be
in practice. We have been generating more revenue and we have been increasing
our deficit. So, that is not an answer, and the minister cannot provide it. The
minister does not want to provide it because they have a secret plan for the
people of this Province, on how to take $300 million out. She will not stand in
this House and backup her statement on page 12 of the Budget Speech. She will
not back it up and do it.
The Toronto-Dominion Bank says: Where is the plan? They have not seen it.
Where is the plan to take the $300 million out? I am waiting for it. I have
asked for it. I have said in the public and in debate here on this budget many
times. I asked in Question Period today, but we do not have any answers. Any
questions I have asked on this budget I have not gotten an answer, Mr. Speaker.
I have not gotten an answer.
When we moved to an accrual basis for our budget, I asked the minister: How
did you arrive at a $666 million deficit? Tell us. Your net additions to capital
assets depreciated. What did you depreciate on net additions? She could not tell
us. The minister could not answer questions on her own budget to explain to the
people how she arrived at it. What happens when they cannot do that? Number one,
they either do not know it, or they do not want to do it. I say it is one of two
things, they do not know the answer or they do not want to tell us. I am not
going to prejudge which one it is. Either one to me is as equally disturbing, I
say, Mr. Speaker. Either one is equally disturbing and equally frustrating. It
is not wanting to tell the people the truth or the minister not knowing the
truth, and I do not know which one is worse. I do not know. That is for
everybody to judge accordingly on their own. I cannot see all these economists,
those financial experts, all being wrong. Expert after expert comment on this
situation.
Here we have the CIBC, here is what they said - and this was March 28, after
the budget. "Although an enlarged deficit will put upward pressure on the
province's borrowing requirements, this will be moderated by a reduction in
projected maturities and calls." They are saying that this deficit is going
to put upward pressure on the Province's borrowing requirements. That is what
they are saying this year. We are going to have added pressure because of it.
The CIBC, March 28. That statement is telling.
The one by the BMO Financial Group, here is what they said, "The
budgeted headline deficit for 2003-04 is $287 million, but the true deficit is
$666 million. A deficit of this size, combined with already high debt levels, is
not sustainable."
The Bank of Montreal said what this government is doing with the high debt
level they have, and I will use their exact words, "A deficit of this size,
combined with already high debt levels, is not sustainable." That is what
they said, it is not sustainable what this Province is doing. So every bank, one
after the other, people who know business, who deal with companies, they look at
the bottom line of companies, they look at what is happening, what is a good
investment, are they on the right track?
Well, we only need to go back, again - and this one, the BMO, they were
making reference to Newfoundland's Budget. This was back on March 27, 1998,
and it went on to say, and I will just make reference to this because it is
interesting, "In his 1998-99 budget unveiled yesterday, Newfoundland
Finance Minister, Paul Dicks, held to the three-year plan he announced last year
to balance the budget by 1999-2000."
So, we were told that this government was going to balance the budget by
1999-2000. It goes on to say, "Newfoundland returned to deficits in 1996-97
as the Province suffered the effects of the moratorium on cod fishing, changes
to unemployment insurance, declining federal transfers and the winding down of
construction on the Hibernia oil project. The three year plan included the
elimination of 1100 civil service positions and deficit targets of $20 million
in 1997-98, $10 million in 1998-1999, and zero in 1999-2000. Yesterday's
budget held to that plan, though the optimistic revenue forecast may result in a
larger deficit...."
The same story we are hearing, Mr. Speaker, year after year after year. We
are hearing optimistic predictions on bottom lines. We are talking about we are
going to balance it next year. Now, she is telling us we are going to balance it
in 2007-2008, and this goes on and on forever. I am sick and tired of listening
to and reading statements that are rhetoric. They have no fundamental plan to
achieve it. It makes great news, great discussion on Budget day when we go out
and we talk about balancing the budget and say we have a plan. We never see the
plan.
If someone is going to balance a budget in four years' time, what do you
need to show? You need to show the projected revenues over that period. You need
to show your projected expenditures over that period, and you need to show how
you are reducing that gap to get to that point. This minister has not done it.
This government has no fiscal plan. It does not have a fiscal plan. They told us
we were going to get one back on March 27, 1998; they had a three-year plan to
balance it. What happened? It went the other way.
The minister said today, we are going to reduce that today, that $300 million
deficit. She said today, we are going to reduce it by increasing revenues. The
minister does not realize that revenues have gone up every year, and the deficit
has gone up faster, gone up more. Increase revenues and the deficit goes up more
and more. Now she is going to tell us they are going to do it differently. They
to start doing something different. What are they going to do? Revenues are
going up. They have to do something. Revenues go up and you spend more. You do
not reduce the deficit. If revenues go up and you spend less, you can increase
the deficit. So, the minister has to stand in this House, in due course, and
answer to the people what is her plan. I would like to see it. She said it is an
effective plan. If she has the plan, I would like to see it. I have not seen it
yet. We have asked for it several times. I asked for it in this House on
numerous occasions, and outside in interviews and so on. I have asked today and
I have not received it.
They are kind of nervous over there. I tell you, they are kind of worried.
They are kind of worried, I might add. They are kind of worried, Mr. Speaker.
Now they are getting uneasy over there because they know they do not have a
plan. Every single one who sits around that Cabinet table and on that side of
the House know they have no plan for the people of this Province. We are on
automatic pilot. We are on automatic pilot, that is what I would say, here in
this Province. We are sailing out on the sea on automatic pilot and we are going
to stop when we run out of fuel or the winds die down, whatever the case may be,
whichever one. That is what is going to happen. This government does not have a
plan.
There are interesting things, some colorful things, I guess, happening in
this Province today. I will not get into all the specific things there at all. I
would not do that, but I want to talk about an interesting paper, an interesting
submission to the pre-Budget consultation process here that was submitted. It
was a very interesting one. When I read through it, it was submitted by the
Capital Coast Development Alliance on a pre-Budget consultation session. There
were some very interesting things here in this that would make you think and
plan so we can be the recipients of that job market that is happening out there,
not allowing it to slip away somewhere else. They said in their presentation,
"It is our believe that the economic consequences to this Province of not
investing in early intervention/prevention measures far outweigh the costs
involved."
One of the points they are trying to make, basically, is that: Look, we have
to get in early. We have to invest in prevention because it far outweighs the
costs we might need down the road.
They go on to talk about a few interesting things here, just factual things.
They said, "Construction companies have been turning down work due to a
lack of labour. There are few new entrants into many occupations, yet we know
that significant percentages of skilled tradespeople will retire in the next few
years. For example, based on 1996 census, 31.7 % of all skilled tradespeople
(including plumbers, carpenters, bricklayers, roofers and electricians) are over
the age of 45, with only 7.6 % in the 15-24 age category."
It goes on to mention the marine industry, for example, and we have a lot of
people in this Province involved in the marine industry. If you look at the
marine industry, we are not talking about just fishing out there, and fishing
enterprises. Basically, the marine industry takes in numerous aspects of it.
There are boats, ships, vessels that bring oil from the offshore. They bring
freight in numerous other areas.
It said, " The Marine Industry is experiencing a world wide shortage of
marine officers. The Baltic and International Maritime Council projects a
shortage of ships officers to be 42,000 by 2005, up from a shortage of 18,000 in
1995."
I know we have a Marine Institute here, a tremendous facility here in our
Province, that is training people in a lot of areas. There are, I must say, some
very positive results in programs offered here. It is tremendous. We have to
build on our strengths around the ocean, around the sea.
It says, "Employment from a number of programs at the Marine Institute
is virtually guaranteed." There are certain programs you go into, you are
guaranteed to get work when you come out - and we are going to have a shortage.
"For example, of the graduation class of 2000, 100% of the graduates
from Marine Engineering Systems Design and 93 % of graduates from the Nautical
Science programs was employed." That is very interesting. "Yet, there
is a negative perception towards employment in the marine industry...."
People do not look upon many people being employed in the marine industry as
a positive aspect. There are so many positive aspects. I know you are away from
home, that is the way of life, and people around our Province have had to grow
up - they grew up, the inshore fishermen, many of them, and then in the winter
they left and went away to work. They did not get EI when they were growing up.
They could not feed their families on what they made in the summer. They went
away and worked the winter. Then they were gone and came back home in the next
year and contributed. It said there was, "...only about 4 % of 2001
provincial high school graduates entering the Marine Institute." - and
there is going to be a tremendous shortage.
I know a fair number in my district have gone into the Marine Institute and
are doing programs there. A lot of them, I must say, are finishing up and
getting jobs, and I am sure all over. There is a demand for it.
It says, "In the Avalon East School District (AESD), of the 1800 new
matriculants, just 22 students or 1% enrolled in marine programs at the Marine
Institute." One per cent enrolled at the Marine Institute, out of the
Avalon East School Board. Four per cent in the Province, which means outside the
City of St. John's we are getting more people involved, but still not enough
to meet the demands in some of these markets there. I know some of the people
who graduated have gone down to the U.S. and they have taken jobs in different
parts of the world. It is unfortunate that the avai