Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers; Oral Questions — 31 March 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 8)
2004-03-31
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 31, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 8
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
This afternoon the Chair would like to welcome some visitors to our
galleries. We have ten students from the Brother T.I. Murphy Centre in St. John's,
with their teacher Eileen Brazil.
We also have, from the Town of Deer Lake, Mayor Harold Ball, with his
councillors who are sitting in the gallery this afternoon as well. We have
Deputy Mayor Reg Tilley, Town Manager Walter Dominie, and Councillor Dean Ball.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have Statements by Members, and we will be
hearing statements by the Member for Burin-Placentia West, the Member for
Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the Member for Humber Valley, the Member for
Twillingate & Fogo, the Member for St. John's North, and the Member for
Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to extend
congratulations to Ms. Susan Tobin of Marystown on winning the Dr. Paul O'Neil
Scholarship for Excellence in Newfoundland and Labrador Studies.
The Historic Sites Association established this scholarship in honour of Dr.
Paul O'Neil, to recognize his many contributions to the study and promotion of
Newfoundland and Labrador culture and history, and awards the scholarship
annually to an undergraduate student at Memorial University who is enrolled in a
Bachelor of Arts degree program.
Ms. Tobin is the daughter of Glen and Linda Tobin. Many of you will remember
that Mr. Tobin was a member of this House from 1982 to 1996, representing the
District of Burin-Placentia West.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in wishing Ms. Susan Tobin
congratulations and every success in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pat O' Toole from
Carbonear, who recently ran a marathon in Bermuda to raise money for the
Arthritis Society. Mr. O' Toole is a teacher at the College of the North
Atlantic and has been running for the past few years. He only ran his first
marathon last year at the St. John's Tely 10 and afterwards became involved
with the Joints in Motion Training Team to raise funds for the Arthritis
Society.
In January, Mr. O'Toole and seven other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
took
part in the forty-two kilometre marathon in Bermuda. Mr. O'Toole was
running for his neighbour, Beatrice Oates, who has arthritis. Of the 400 runners
in Bermuda, Mr. O'Toole finished in thirty-first place in the time of three
hours and forty-one minutes. Moreover, he has raised almost $5,000 for the
Arthritis Society and arthritis research.
Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of the House to join me in
congratulating Mr. O'Toole on his successful marathon as well as his efforts
to aid arthritis research.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise before you
today to congratulate His Worship Mayor of Deer Lake, Harold "Smokey"
Ball, on receiving the Queen's Golden Jubilee Award.
The award was bestowed on him by the Government General, Her Excellency the
Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, for his contribution to his community and
country.
Mr. Ball was born in, and has lived his entire life in, his home town of Deer
Lake. He is married to Rowena and together they have seven children.
Mr. Ball worked in the Town of Deer Lake and after raising his family, which
wasn't always an easy task, stepped into municipal politics.
With eleven grandchildren living in Deer Lake, Mayor Ball took on his role as
Deputy Mayor with vigor. Some of his many accomplishments include revitalizing
Main Street and building a swimming pool and bowling alley for the town. Due to
his leadership, the Town of Deer Lake has become one of the most progressive
communities in our Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating Mr.
Ball on receiving the Queen's Golden Jubilee Award.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the recent recipients of awards from
the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary at the organization's twenty-fifth
anniversary banquet. The Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary is a non-profit
organization made up of hard-working volunteers and assists the Canadian Coast
Guard in conducting search and rescue operations and boat safety programs.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, 1,047 individuals volunteer with the Canadian
Coast Guard Auxiliary, and the organization operates more than 480 vessels.
Needless to say, the work of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary is of great
importance in a Province with a seafaring heritage and culture. Six auxiliary
members were awarded medals for twenty-five years of service. In this group a
constituent of mine, Mr. Jack Troake of Twillingate, was honoured.
I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in showing appreciation of
the hard work and dedication of Mr. Troake and the five other volunteers, as
well as the many others in the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary who help keep our
citizens safe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to offer congratulations to a sixteen-year-old lady named Betty
Zou. Betty is a Grade 12 student at Prince of Wales Collegiate and recently was
the winner of the Northwest Rotary Speak off held in St. John's. In her speech
entitled: Modern Day Slavery, Betty called attention to the horrendous crime of
trafficking in human beings.
Mr. Speaker, it is worthy of note that Betty and her family came to Canada in
as a second language; her first language being Mandarin. She will now travel to
Ottawa in May for the national competition which is part of the Adventures in
Citizenship program.
I would ask all members to join me in congratulating Betty Zou on winning the
Rotary speak off and we wish her well in Ottawa.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work done by
Mothers Against Drunk Drivers in the Province. The group visited several schools
in the Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune district with representatives from the RCMP.
Northern and Central Newfoundland MADD spokespersons Irving and Glenda Hale
shared the story of their own personal loss when a drunk driver in Michigan
killed their daughter Amanda in 2001.
In 2002, according to MADD, 944 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were injured
or killed in accidents relating to drinking and driving. Mr. and Mrs. Hale hope
that their efforts can lower this number and prevent further tragedies like
their own. The Hale family, as well as Sergeant Don Jackman of the Bay d'Espoir
RCMP detachment, were pleased that their presentations had a very large impact
on all those in attendance at King Academy, Harbour Breton; Bay d'Espoir
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hale family, Mothers Against Drunk
Drivers, and the RCMP for their very important and often difficult efforts to
make the youth of our Province aware of the dangers of drinking and driving.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is not necessarily a ministerial statement, but just a point of
information. Today, as we speak, the Premier will not be in the House; I
indicated the possibility of this to the Opposition House Leader. As we speak,
the Premier himself is engaged in negotiations with the public sector unions. I
believe the Minister of Finance, who just arrived, left those negotiations just
a few moments ago. Immediately following Question Period, I understand he will
be back to those negotiations.
I want to put on the record, for anybody who is concerned, the reason why the
Premier is not here today is that he is actively and personally engaged with the
public service sector unions in an attempt to reach a collective agreement.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In a press release dated October 2, the Premier, as Leader of the then
Opposition, made a release talking about: PC policy is about job creation, not
layoffs. Mr. Speaker, in that release there was a comment from the leader of the
party, the now Premier, saying: Any suggestions to the contrary were nothing
more than scaremongering by candidates for other parties. Well, yesterday
everybody found out who was scaremongering and who was not when the government
announced that they were going to slash 4,000 jobs from the public service over
the next four years; a complete and total betrayal of the public service workers
in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, all of these people are now in a government with the one-man
show -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member now to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
How does this government - and whomever would like to speak for them today -
how do they expect people to believe them? Aren't they concerned about a
growing credibility deficit with this government, just like there is concern
about a financial deficit, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our government is taking responsible action. The Leader of the Opposition,
during the election campaign, accused us of wanting to lay off 6,400 people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: We are going to look at accommodating the people - the 400
collective bargaining members who are affected - to the greatest extent possible
under attrition, which will be a number of about 1,500 this year. I informed the
unions that last Saturday. I have had discussions with them on that since to
have a smooth accommodation. By their own admission the accommodations in 1990s,
when it happened, the workforce reduction worked very well there and by their
own admission, it was a fairly accommodating process. The numbers are way
smaller in this regard and we hope to have a very positive transition of outlook
for people as they move into other positions that they work during their terms
of notice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commentary but it does not address the issue
about a growing credibility deficit with respect to this government,
particularly the Premier, and now the Finance Minister.
Mr. Speaker, again, from the same press release that said clearly, and I
state: I have clearly stated that there will not be public service layoffs.
Nothing about whether they were massive or not, or whether it is 700, 1,000, or
6,000. It says there will not be public sector layoffs. No layoffs, Mr. Speaker,
is the statement.
I ask again: How can this government expect anybody to believe what they are
saying? As they stated their policy was, before they released it: people should
trust me, what I say I will do when I get elected. How can anybody believe
anything this group is saying?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Before we continue with Question Period, I have to remind
members that wearing of lapel slogans and buttons communicating messages that
are not pertinent to the parliamentary process is strictly forbidden in this
House. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition if he will remove from his lapel
any object which would be contrary to the parliamentary process.
MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Is the member speaking to my commentary?
MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: In this particular case the Speaker has made a ruling, he
has asked the Leader of the Opposition - I do understand he is wearing a button
in his lapel which would be contrary to the parliamentary procedures, and I ask
the hon. Leader of the Opposition if he would remove, from his lapel, any
buttons or slogans which may not be pertaining to the parliamentary traditions
of this House or not pertaining to the parliamentary traditions of the House of
Commons in Ottawa.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: The leader is certainly not protesting or contesting - on a
point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: I rise again because, in this particular case, this is not a
matter of where there can be a great deal of commentary. The rule is very
simple. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition again, if he would remove from
his lapel the object that I do understand he has there which is part of some
other thing, which is not germane to the parliamentary process in the House. I
am asking you to comply with the Speaker's request.
MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, before I get into commenting on your
commentary, I need some clarification, I guess, in the sense that I feel Your
Honour's comments are contrary to what is stated in Rule 504 of Beauchesne. I
just need some clarification.
The Speaker here has said that it is contrary to the traditions of this House
and contrary to the rules of the House of Commons. I just point out for the
Speaker's clarification, that
Section 504 of Beauchesne, which deals with
exhibits, says quite clearly, "Political buttons and similar lapel pins do
not constitute an exhibit." The only rules I can find anywhere dealing with
exhibits are those. There are none in our Standing Orders. I would like it
clarified, Mr. Speaker. If there is something I am missing here I would like to
be made aware of it, that is all.
MR. SPEAKER: Again, the Speaker has made a request of the House - I
remind members that even when in Ottawa, when we had the flag debate, there was
a request that even the small flags would be removed from the desk of the
members. Certainly, I do believe that request is very moderate. This House is
not a place for carrying on the commentaries by way of buttons, slogans, and
that kind of thing. Again, I am asking the Leader of the Opposition if he would
remove the button from his lapel.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will gladly provide the pin to Your Honour and ask you to have a look at it
again to see whether or not it meets the criteria, because I am sure you would
like to read the pin at some point to see whether or not you think it violates
any particular rule. I do not want to violate any of the rules. I respect your
judgement in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, the -
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.
On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is taking up a little bit of time in Question Period so I ask if it
would be okay with all members that if three or four minutes, or whatever time
has been eaten up on this section, that we extend Question Period by that time
to ensure that the integrity of Question Period is maintained.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will certainly take that under advisement. If it
is agreeable to all members we can extend it by the appropriate amount of time.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We referenced in our Blue Book, to significant attrition in the system, that
we would look after dealing with any workforce reductions primarily through
attrition. We are intending to do that.
I would like to tell the Leader of the Opposition, a credibility problem is
not on this side of the House. When he was Minister of Employment and Labour
Relations he said: At the end of the day it means that some things that were
promised and committed to cannot be honoured. That is a very tough decision to
make, and it is a very tough decision that the government took a couple of years
ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: One thing the Leader of the Opposition forgot to tell us
was the significant deficit that he put this Province in for many years to come!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I am sure that the Finance Minister would not like to be -
particularly today with the negotiations going on - stating the same as the
Premier, that the problem with the finances is that the public servants got too
big a raise. Because he would know, Mr. Speaker, that the cash deficit this
year, that he announced yesterday, is the size of the raise for the public
servants. That, and that alone. That is the only thing.
Mr. Speaker, he talks about the attrition policy. The ads that were in every
district, for all the members with their leader during the election said:
Government, there will be no layoffs in the public service under a Progressive
Conservative Government. How do they expect to have creditability when yesterday
they are saying there are 700 layoffs for starters -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: - and thousands more to come over the next four years, Mr.
Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance; President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are going to deal with our fiscal situation in a responsible manner.
Decisions made in the past - we are still in this fiscal year - are going to be
accounted for in this Budget; $30 million of annualized on salary increases that
were not accounted before. We have on an annualized basis - the full
implementation is a $350 million cost to government on that specific issue, I
say to him. If we are talking about the serious situation we are in, I can only
refer him back to his comments, as Minister of Health and Community Services,
when he said: We are on an extremely dangerous course, which did not contain -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister to complete his answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: - a lead to financial disaster for Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, everybody in this Legislature would know that the Minister of
Finance tried to convince everyone in the last ten years that he knew how
serious the problem was and that the government was not coming clean. He has
made that speech repeatedly, Mr. Speaker. If he knew, how could he run with a
straight face under a banner that said: I know how serious the problem is but I
will still say, never mind the problem, there will be no layoffs, and then read
yesterday's statement that says: 700 layoffs, 4,000 jobs to be slashed over
the next four years, and you can trust me because everything I say I am going to
do. How do they expect anyone to believe them, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I always expect people to believe the truth, and my statement on the fiscal
situation of our Province in the current year - we had a ballpark estimate -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the Opposition to allow me to
answer.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It is impossible for us to have a Question Period that is able to function
unless members are going to co-operate and keep their noise levels to an
appropriate low level.
Again, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board - a
few moments to complete your answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We fully anticipated the deficit for the current fiscal year to be high even
though it was understated on an accrual basis. What we did not expect was to
keep hidden from us that in three years and two years and four years time we
would amass about $400 million more than we anticipated. Hiding that from the
people of the Province was a wrong act to do. It was not honest and forthright.
I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now: Why did you hide it from the
people of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the real truth comes when you listen closely to the words of
people like the Minister of Finance. He was asked yesterday, by one of the media
interviewing him outside the Legislature: Wouldn't you rather have presented a
different Budget, not so harsh? His answer was very telling. His answer was: No,
not really. I am proud to present this Budget.
Mr. Speaker, the question is this. He is proud to present it because he is
one of the ones who gets to talk to the one-man show, and the fact of the matter
is that they planned all along for wage freezes and layoffs and job cuts. It is
only now that they are proud to announce it. Before, they told people: No
layoffs. How are we ever to supposed to believe this government, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think what irritates the Opposition there is that finally they are getting
the truth and they don't like it, because they have to wear the truth of what
has happened here in our Province.
Oh, how things change when he goes to that side. As a member, previously he
said: On our year-to-year salary items, you have to be able to pay your own way.
On the financial markets they will start looking at you and saying: These people
are fiscally irresponsible. In the bigger picture, he said, the expenditure of
government has to be controlled. It has to be better and reduce the risk.
That is what he said when he sat over here. Now we are getting a different
story from him. Stand up and give the people the truth -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: - and stop hiding it from the people of the Province!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I feel like I should stop questioning my friend, the neighbour,
because I am afraid something might happen to him health-wise there. I have seen
him change colour before, and it was not a good situation.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: The people of the Province today
feel betrayed by this government, absolutely betrayed. They have been pierced
through their hearts and souls with the first prong. Yesterday there was no
mention of the second prong for economic development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: When is the Minister of Finance going to start meeting with
the Premier and getting on with growing the economy?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the Leader of the Opposition that his supplementary should not need
a lengthy
preamble. It might be very interesting, but it is not necessary. I ask
him to get directly to his question.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would be very interested in knowing what the Leader of the Opposition meant
when he said: We are on an extremely dangerous course which, if not contained,
could lead to financial disaster for Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would like to tell him, he expects the seeds of economic development to
grow overnight. What does he think? That it is a yeast we are going to put
there; in fifteen minutes we are going to create thousands of jobs in the
Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Anyone who knows the role of government should understand,
you set the seeds of economic development. They have to grow and nurture. We put
a department in place. We are going to be friendly to businesses of the
Province; grow and increase the business climate.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister now to complete his answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: We are going to create jobs in the economy of our Province.
The Leader of the Opposition does not want to see that happen, Mr. Speaker. He
does not want to see it happen. That is what is wrong with him. He would not do
it, and I (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we all look forward to the seeds of growth rather than the seeds
of despair that were sown yesterday by the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, the documents from yesterday show that, despite the first time
in a decade that we had in-migration and population growth last year, their own
documents are saying this year, because of the slashing of 4,000 jobs and the
dampening of the economy, not the seeds of growth, that there is going to be a
return to out-migration and declining populations starting right away. What
kinds of seeds are they, I ask the Minister of Finance? When are we going to get
down to the real task of growing the economy and having some hope in
Newfoundland and Labrador, instead of dashing the hopes like you did yesterday?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very surprised that the Leader
of the Opposition, who was premier of this government, does not know what the
long-term forecast, in terms of numbers of people under migration in and out in
the Province are, and where the birth and death rates are at. We are getting,
for the first time in our history now, where deaths are going to start
increasing births. The same figures, Mr. Speaker, are provided to me that were
provided to him before. It tells us that over the next several years we should
see deaths increasing births. That should reduce the population in our Province
because net in and out migration have tapered off.
This year, over the past several months, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister to complete his answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer his question if wanted
to hear the answer.
There are roughly 270-some less people than there were last summer because -
and this occurred during the fall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Out-migration.
MR. SPEAKER : Order, please!
Thank you very much.
The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday government tabled a Budget that
increased fees for all government services which affect people from the cradle
to the grave; including a twenty-five dollar fee for a death certificate.
I would like to ask the Minister of Government Services: Can she tell the
House how much money her department will collect from this tax grab?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his
question.
I do not have the dollar figure in front of me but I will tell him, the fee
that was brought in was for individuals - we have had several requests in our
department for death certificates. In fact, we have had as high as ten to
fifteen requests from one individual. It is cost recovery. Some of those fees
will retain this government. This government has to generate revenue for the
mess that we have been left in, Mr. Speaker. We will do the honourable thing and
we have fee increases.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour
Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: It is a sad, sad commentary that the minister recognizes it
was a tax grab. I can tell the minister how much it was. I can tell you how much
it was. The government will rip $25 million out of the people's pockets this
year. And you claim there are no tax increases, only fee increases! The
Department of Government Services, I say to the Minister of Finance, if he would
let me ask my question, will take $15 million out of that themselves. Can the
minister tell us why she is taxing the poor and rewarding the rich with these
excessive fees?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The reason for the increase in fees - and the hon. member across the House
should know this because he has been presented with the same figures I have been
presented with, as a minister, but I have had the courage to stand here and put
this Province back on a fiscal (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad commentary this afternoon,
that the minister would stand on her feet and say that she is growing the
economy out of the pockets of the poor people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the things in life that people expect in this
Province, like getting a moose, an ambulance trip, a hospital room, buying a new
house or purchasing a vehicle or anything else from this government, you have
got to pay through the nose for it.
The minister is using this as a cash grab. They have not increased the roads
budget, not one cent, or services even close to the amount they have raised the
fees.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his question.
MR. SWEENEY: Can the minister tell this hon. House why the forty dollar
increase for vehicle registrations and licenses will not go into roadwork?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, this increase will provide this Province with an
additional $7 million to put into the infrastructure of road funding in this
Province, and the hon. member knows full well that the road conditions in this
Province are deplorable, left by the previous administration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Monday, the Premier confirmed that he didn't stand for layoffs, which is
what he told Leo Puddister on October 17, and later committed it in writing,
prior to the election, that there would be no layoffs in the public service.
Why, Mr. Speaker, in light of these commitments and the statements of the
Premier and this party seeking election, has this government chosen to violate
those commitments and chosen layoffs, massive job cuts and regressive fees, as
were just discussed by the previous speaker, instead of tax fairness for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Why have they chosen that course of action?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the same reason we did not increase taxes, because we do not want to have
a dampening effect on the economy of our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, I ask for members' co-operation so the Minister of Finance and the
President of Treasury Board can answer the question.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the member, currently we are the highest taxed province in the
entire country and we have the highest number of public servants as a percentage
of our working population than any other province in this country to deliver
similar levels of public services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Instead of raising ambulance fees by 53 per cent, couldn't the Minister of
Finance recognize that if the corporate tax rate for this Province was the same
as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that we would have, in fact, an additional $65
million in revenue for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for services? Why
doesn't he look at things like that? We are not overtaxed when it comes to
corporations and royalties from our offshore.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are trying to entice businesses to come to our Province and grow the
economy of our Province, not turn them away.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It seems to be working better for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
The hon. member.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is pretty clear; economists say that all this amounts to, in fact, is a
windfall for the businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador. People do not come
here to exploit iron ore, offshore oil or nickel because it is in Newfoundland
and Labrador and lower tax rates. They come here because of the resources. The
minister knows that, and yet he is giving them a windfall, a free ride, at the
expense of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not sure what his question was, but -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: I did not hear a question but, Mr. Speaker, we are here to
effect the best deals. It is the people opposite who struck bad deals on behalf
of the people of this Province. We have ensured that any future deals in this
Province will serve the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Education.
Last year, the minister and his colleagues criticized our government for
eliminating teaching positions. In fact, according to the Chair of the School
Councils, while they were in Opposition they stood shoulder to shoulder with her
in their condemnation of the Liberal government.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, now that he has slashed 475 teaching
positions, does he feel that he mislead and betrayed the teachers and the
students of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Ministerial Panel on Education - and the hon. member knows
what I am referring to because he referenced it in a question earlier - the
Sparkes-Williams Report has a set of recommendations with respect to the number
of teaching units that would come out of the system each year. The number that
will come out, I say to the hon. member, the number of teaching units that come
out in September coming, is 256, and that number is arrived at in the following
way, I say to the hon. member: 147 because of declining enrollment this year,
and an additional 109, which is one-half of the 218 that was kept in arbitrarily
several years ago. I say to the hon. member, the situation for September coming
could have been much worse, but in the interests of the students of this
Province we retained 109 -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to complete his answer.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: - from the 218, for a total of 256 teaching units. As
the hon. member is fully aware, the school boards in this Province -
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the minister.
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister that the 400 teachers that we left in according to the
same formula were eliminated yesterday with the stroke of a pen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister said in The Telegram this
morning that he wants to improve an already superlative education system. The
Minister of Finance said yesterday that he want to revitalize education in our
Province.
I ask the minister: Does he believe that by eliminating 475 teachers and
replacing them with computer monitors, that he is going to revitalize the
education system in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we do have a superlative system of
education in this Province, and this government will enhance the system that we
enjoy in this Province, but I do wish to correct the hon. member. When he uses
figures such as 400 or 500, he is misleading the people of this Province. In
September of this year, in September of 2004, we will have 256 teaching units
less, and the explanation has been given as to why.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate &
Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say that yesterday officials from the department
of the Minister of Finance told me that this year and next year you will
eliminate 475 positions. Mr. Speaker, the minister, with no consultation with
anyone in this Province involved with education, yesterday announced: six school
boards will be eliminated in this Province. The Minister of Finance cannot even
tell me how much money this will save him in this year's Budget.
I ask the minister: Will he tell me today how many jobs will be slashed at
these boards, and will he reinvest the money back into education from those
savings like they promised in the Blue Book?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the hon. member, the details of governance will be determined in due
course. We will be putting in place interim school boards made up of qualified,
component people, who will continue to work along with the school board
officials and the school board trustees from the existing school boards and with
the assistance of my department, the Department of Education, to ensure -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask again for the House's cooperation. It is impossible for the Chamber
to be able to hear what the minister is saying. The minister still has about
twenty seconds left. I ask him to continue his answer.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With the cooperation of the interim boards, our present boards, and with the
Department of Education, I will say to the public of this Province, with
confidence, that we will have a system ready to go on September 1, 2004.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.
This government announced in the Budget that they will close twenty offices,
which serves some of the poorest people in this Province. They have cut funds
for training programs of people who are trying to break the poverty cycle. These
are more examples of betrayal by this heartless government. Will the minister
stand in her place and tell the people of this Province which offices will close
down?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we make the final determination -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, I ask members for their cooperation. We have time for one answer here,
and I think we might have time for one more question on that side.
The hon. the minister.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question. As
soon as the final determination has been made on the office sites and regional
staff have been consulted, I will stand in this House and inform him of what
specific sites.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: There is time for one brief supplementary.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am totally amazed that they have made decisions to close offices in this
Province and they do not even know which ones they are.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: All they mind is cutting and putting each department in total
disarray; the offices around this Province.
I ask the minister, rather than wait for the axe to fall, why won't she
stand in her place and tell the people who are in the offices in Piccadilly,
Stephenville, Port aux Basques and Deer Lake and other offices, what their
future is?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment, very briefly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have just indicated, once the final decisions
have been made, when our regional offices have been consulted, I will stand in
this House and inform the members opposite of the specific sites.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
The time for Question Period has ended.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Channel-Port
aux Basques. It is in relation to the impending slashing that is anticipated to
take place in the Western Health Care Corporation. It is signed by residents
from anywhere in my district, ranging from Rose Blanche, which is in the
mid-section of my district of Burgeo-LaPoile, into the Codroy Valley, which is
into the hon. Minister for Human Resources, Labour and Employment, up in South
Branch in the Codroy Valley.
Mr. Speaker, there are about 200 names on this petition. There are, at least,
another 5,000 names that are en route by way of petitions. It deals with the
Minister of Health having requested from the Western Health Care Corporation a
plan to save $3 million by today, at that time, by the end of this fiscal year,
and to save $21 million over the next ten years.
There has been a lot of controversy on the West Coast. The residents, in
addition to having ambulance increases and everything else now as we see as of
yesterday, we now are left in a rather sad situation again of not knowing where
we are going with the health care system. Notwithstanding that, a best practices
review was requested by the Western Health Care Corporation some months ago. The
minister finally got around to announcing it about three or four weeks ago. Now
we are waiting until May.
One of the biggest problems that the public has is not knowing. I realize
this may be a government in its infancy, but saying we don't have the answers
we have to wait until Budget, and then after the Budget saying, we don't have
the answers we have to wait further - the same is happening in this health care
situation; we cannot give you the answers - it is very disheartening and very
disturbing and causes great distress to the people who signed this petition.
That is one the big problems here.
This is a petition opposing any cuts, because the Charles L. LeGrow Health
Centre in Port aux Basques which services all the people of that region, from
Rose Blanche up to and including the Codroy Valley which is in the hon. member's
district as well, is already operating on bare bones. It has been cut over the
years, because sometimes they couldn't get, for example, the necessary medical
personnel. What is there now is a bare bones services. You cannot take away from
what already are the essentials.
Of course, we have a similar problem in Stephenville. The Member for Port au
Port entered a petition here a few days ago in that regard. I am pleased to see
that, notwithstanding he is on the government side, he stood up on behalf of his
constituents and said the same thing: We cannot accept any less than what we
already have, because what we already have is the bare minimum.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, over the next few days I will be standing in this
House again, to put forward a case for the people of Burgeo & LaPoile,
particularly these petitions that are coming from the Rose Blanche to the South
Branch area, protesting any diminution whatsoever and reduction in health care
services in the Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am standing in the House today, and not at the pleasure, I can tell you, of
my constituents, but certainly at the urging and encouragement of them, to get
this government to make a decision with regard to the Labrador coastal marine
service.
Mr. Speaker, the people of my district have been treated in the most
despicable, deplorable way that any citizens of this Province could be treated
by a government. Not only have they been told that, we won't clear the snow
off your roads because there is too much there, we cannot handle it. We cannot
handle getting a big of snow off the roads in Southern Labrador, Mr. Speaker,
but yet they are going to get a handle on the deficit in this Province, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the people in my district today don't know if they are going
to have a marine service operating between Cartwright and Goose Bay. Mr.
Speaker, they don't know when the service will come into play, if they will
have one. They don't have a reservation system, Mr. Speaker. This is an area
of the Province that has pioneered in the tourism industry. This is an area that
has seen growth in the tourism industry from 25 to 30 per cent on an annual
basis for the past six years. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the entire economy of that area
is being shot.
Do you know why it is, Mr. Speaker? Because you have a minister who is torn
between making a decision that is right and proper for the people of the
Province and making one that is going to be politically beneficial to him in his
own district. That is the problem.
This government went out and had another study done. Another study to look at
the marine services in Southern Labrador, and still today they are sitting on
the report making no decisions. The people in that area have never been so
demoralized in their entire life as they are today.
Do you know what they are dealing with? They are dealing with and entrusting
the service and the future of their area to a minister who has been in the paper
repeatedly saying that he would like to have the service in his own district, in
the District of Lewisporte. I will fight for you. I will make sure that it is
done. I will do this and I will do that, Mr. Speaker. With no regard to the
people in Southern Labrador; no regard to any other people in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, I ask members if they would permit the member to present her petition
in a manner which facilitates debate without great numbers of interruptions.
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, when the media, on behalf of the people in my
district, went to look for answers this morning on the radio from the minister
responsible for Labrador he could not find his notes. He was on the radio and he
could not find his notes. That is the accountability that the minister
responsible for Labrador is showing to the people in that area.
I listened to the Member for Lake Melville, who is up there in his seat
tapping his desk. Tapping, Mr. Speaker, at a time when people in Labrador,
adjacent to where he lives, do not have any snow-clearing on their roads -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MS JONES: - do not have a marine service for this summer.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Before we move to Orders of the Day and the resolution before the House, I
want to bring to members' attention an issue which came up during Question
Period relative to displays, exhibits and props.
Clearly, in Marleau and Montpetit, page 520, in an
article entitled:
Displays, Exhibits, Props, the following is said, "Speakers have
consistently ruled out of order displays or demonstrations of any kind used by
Members to illustrate their remarks or emphasize their positions. Similarly,
props of any kind, used as a way of making a silent comment on issues, have
always been found unacceptable in the Chamber. Members may hold notes in their
hands, but they will be interrupted and reprimanded by the Speaker if they use
papers, documents or other objects to illustrate their remarks."
Today we had several offences to that particular rule by holding up articles
and demonstrations. We had the wearing of lapel objects. Clearly, in Marleau and
Montpetit this practice is not sanctioned, and I refer members to that.
In addition, I bring to members' attention that the rule for the House is,
in any House to one extent, the wearing of such objects or holding of such
papers creates disorder. Today it was clear to me that disorder was being
created in both instances.
Thank you very much.
MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have some buttons that say: Don't blame me, I voted NDP. Do I take it,
that would be out of order as well?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I refer the member to page 520 of Marleau for his
consolation and consolidation.
Today being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, I do believe that an
arrangement has been made by members to recognize the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Before we move on to the actual motion of the day, I just want to bring to
the attention of the House that because we are dealing with a Wednesday here,
and Private Members' Day, the procedure is outlined in Standing Order 63.
Particularly, I refer to Standing Order 63.(3), which says that a Private Member's
motion ought to be entered into the House on a Monday. In this case we did not
have any such motion entered on a Monday. It was, in fact, read in by the
Premier yesterday following the Budget. I would submit, if that is the case, and
the Standing Order has not been followed, the proper procedure is for the
Government House Leader to ask leave to proceed with the debate on the private
member's motion.
Secondly, on the issue of the Premier giving a motion in this House on
Private Member's Day, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that is inappropriate as
well. The Speaker is not here as a private member, he is here as the head of
government. Private Member's Days, Wednesdays, are specifically reserved for
private members; not government ministers or for the Premier to give his
resolutions in this House. It may have been done in the past, but only done with
the express leave and consent of all parties in the House. I just want to bring
it to your attention that this was not done. There has been, I would submit, two
breaches of the rules here. If we are to proceed - I understand the Government
House Leader will be seeking leave in order to proceed today in that regard.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Opposition House Leader is technically correct, but let me give the
fuller side of the story. In the past several years there have been, I think on
five separate occasions, when the Opposition for the government, that the day
after the Budget the House closed for a variety of reasons. One, is that it
provided an opportunity both to the government and to the Official Opposition to
hold press conferences; deal with the Budget; get their message out, may in fact
be guests on Open Line - for the Opposition. I remember one time, in my capacity
as Leader of the Opposition, being on Open Line directly following the premier
of the day. That request was made on Monday to the Official Opposition, would
they see that as a possibility. It was a request, not a demand, and I want to
emphasis that to everybody.
On Monday afternoon, the Opposition House Leader advised me that the Official
Opposition wanted to have the House open today and, in my capacity as Government
House Leader, immediately said: Okay, that is fair enough. It was only a
request, so we will proceed.
As a result of that action, Private Members' Day, we, as a government
caucus, never had an opportunity to discuss a motion for Private Members' Day
because we honestly thought that there might be an opportunity where the House
would not open today to deal with the Budget and potential implications arising
from negotiations.
Having said that, by circumstance, we would have introduced it yesterday,
under a normal day, but for the Budget. It was Budget Day. Normally, Budget Day
is really essentially a day for the government, through the Minister of Finance,
to deliver the Budget Speech and then table the Estimates of the House for all
of us to have an opportunity.
Now, there have been instances in the past where, under Notices of Motion,
motions have been presented. Yesterday, on behalf of the government and on
behalf of all government members, a discussion had taken place within our own
caucus that we wanted to put forward a motion to be debated related to offshore
oil and gas revenues as it relates to the framework and the legal entity that we
operate under called the Atlantic Accord. That was a decision of the government
caucus.
Mr. Speaker, from that, it is not normal for the Premier to introduce a
private member's motion, but standing practice and tradition of our own
institution, being the House of Assembly, has always provided, I guess, some
latitude to both caucuses. For example, next Wednesday is the Opposition caucus
day. It is their decision to put forward whatever private member's motion or
motion they wish, and the latitude has always been given, so we see this as
critical and fundamental. It is not a political motion. It does not call on the
House to congratulate government for its actions. There is no grandstanding
involved in the words or in the intent or the phrasing. It does-
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I am responding to the point of order. I will come on, and
if the minister wants to give me a chance to come on, I will come on with it and
I will get to my conclusion without interruption, I ask the member.
In the spirit and intent of that, that is what was put forward. So
technically, Mr. Speaker, today, as required by the rules, we will ask leave to
introduce this motion to give all hon. members the opportunity for us to debate
us 100 per cent of the revenues so that we can put those revenues back into the
coffers of government so that we can offer the types of services and increased
level of services that every member - and I emphasize every member - wants to
offer to the people of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To that point of order, there are traditions in this House, one of which is -
the Government House Leader is correct in that on Private Members' Day the
technicalities of whether the motion is put on Monday or announced on Tuesday
are often overlooked and leave is sought and normally granted to allow either
one side or the other of the House to have a private member's resolution
before the House.
We also have another tradition, Mr. Speaker, and that is: When the Premier of
the day, or someone else, has a resolution that is of such great importance to
the people of the Province that the idea of the resolution really is to get
unanimous support of this House for something that we feel is important to send
the post-TAGS; we did it with respect to the seal fishery; we did it with
respect to Term 17 of the Constitution, and other matters where the premier of
the day normally would say: We have this resolution, and we would like to send a
clear message and signal to Ottawa that we are together on this.
I think this is one of those types of resolutions. The tradition is normally
that we would agree to that and also that leave and discussions would go on
before the fact as opposed to after the fact. Yesterday, we had the motion of
the Premier without any prior consultation - and perhaps there was not time, so
I accept the Government House Leader's point on that. When we spoke about it
yesterday afternoon, after the fact, I certainly indicated that if it was this
type of resolution, that the intention was to seek the unanimous consent of this
House and allow people to put their views on the record with the Premier here -
although I understand he is not here for other reasons today - then we would
agree to that.
If the Government House Leader wants to proceed with this very important
resolution, we certainly are in agreement with doing that today and following
the normal procedure in doing that, and we offer our consent to that procedure.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will rule on the point of order and report back to
the House at a later date; however, I do understand that we do have leave to
proceed with the resolution that is on the Order Paper today. I am hearing
consent that we do have leave, so I would call upon the Government House Leader
to proceed now with the resolution.
We are seven minutes over the mandatory time, and I will seek direction from
the Government House Leader before he closes debate as to whether he wishes to
extend the debate beyond 5:00 p.m.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the opportunity, on behalf of all members of the government and
the willingness of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP. I want, before I
read the resolution, to say to the Leader of the NDP, so it is clearly
understood: The Premier is not out of the House for other reasons. I think it is
clearly important to understand, and that people understand, that the other
reasons are dealing specifically with negotiations that he is personally
involved with today with the leadership of the public sector unions, to try to
avert - and try to reach, I guess, a collective agreement.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the resolution first. It
states:
WHEREAS the main purpose of the Atlantic Accord for Newfoundland and
Labrador, according to paragraph 2(c), is to become the principal beneficiary of
the oil and gas resources off its shores;
AND
WHEREAS that condition - in our view - has not been met;
to acknowledge and honour its obligation under the Atlantic Accord to ensure
Newfoundland and Labrador is the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas
resources off its shores...
Mr. Speaker, when we entered Confederation, Canada essentially took control,
in every way, of all of the resources contained within our ocean and Continental
Shelf. Under the Constitution, provinces control and derive benefit from
land-based resources, but Ottawa, or the central government, controls and
allocates benefits from ocean resources, and this distinction, in our view, is
fundamentally unfair.
Canada's Supreme Court, for example, ruled in 1967 that Canada had
propriety rights offshore. I raise a bit of history to put this debate in
context, Mr. Speaker, because it is important that we understand how we got from
where we are to where we are today, and why this resolution is so absolutely
necessary to the future economic and social well-being of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
In 1972, while the Trudeau government was preparing, I guess, a Supreme Court
Reference on Jurisdiction, Canada and the eastern Premiers had agreed to put
aside jurisdiction in order to reach agreements on revenue sharing and
administration of offshore resources, but the very next year Canada rejected the
proposal put forward by the government of the day.
Seven years later, there was a new government in office in Ottawa, the
minority government of Prime Minister Joe Clarke. In the summer of 1979, the
Clarke government promised to transfer ownership and jurisdiction of offshore
mineral rights to coastal provinces. That was seen, at the time, a significant
departure from previous federal policy. Unfortunately, for this Province - and I
think most would agree on this point - the minority government of Mr. Clarke,
before he and his government had time to implement this important policy and how
it would have impacted and benefitted the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador and thus the people, was defeated on a non-confidence motion before
changes were made.
Mr. Speaker, in September of 1980, the newly re-elected Prime Minister
Trudeau proposed that the question of ownership be set aside and the federal
government agree in principle that the major benefits from development offshore
should accrue to the residents of the adjacent coastal province.
"The federal government further proposes..." - and this is what he
said, not what we are saying or paraphrasing but what he said, the Prime
Minister of the day. "The federal government further proposes that until
those provinces..." - and I have it quoted here - "...became have'
provinces, they should receive the same kinds of revenues as are derived by
provinces from their onshore resources. Canada also proposes a system of joint
administration for offshore mineral resources involving Canada and each of the
coastal provinces."
I raise this point, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate in the clearest of ways that
even the federal Liberal government of the day in the early 1980s recognized,
because of our adjacency to these lucrative resources, that we, as a people and
as a Province involved in the Canadian Confederation, should be and ought to be
the principle beneficiary of their development.
Mr. Speaker, "On July 27, 1981..." - and this comes from the former
government's Royal Commission that they had instituted on Our Place in Canada
- "...Prime Minister Trudeau faxed a letter to Premier Peckford
stating..." - in 1981, on July 27 - "Our position on revenue sharing
is that, if such sharing can be agreed upon through negotiation, Newfoundland
and Labrador should be entitled to all provincial-type revenues." Here is
what he said - Trudeau, that is, in the letter - "In effect, we would for
revenue purposes treat offshore revenues as though they were located on land.
This system would continue for as long as Newfoundland..." - and Labrador -
"...remained a have-not' province." - by Canada's definition.
"After this, a sharing of benefits with other Canadians would start to take
place."
Again, Mr. Speaker, I raise this to illustrate in the clearest possible way
that this was a statement of intent that our Province would be the principal
beneficiary of offshore development, certainly until we became self-reliant from
a financial point of view.
In 1982, Canada and Nova Scotia reached the 1982 Canada-Nova Scotia
Agreement, which is presently the Nova Scotia Accord, but their Accord differs
from ours.
Meanwhile, a few months after 1982, Mr. Speaker, Canada announced it would
take the entire offshore jurisdictional dispute issue affecting Newfoundland and
Labrador to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, Ottawa and the Province continued,
while this reference was being forwarded to the Supreme Court, to negotiate.
By September of 1982, Mr. Speaker, Canada had come up with a comprehensive
proposal, to use their words, to our Province on offshore oil and gas resource
management and revenue sharing, very similar - very similar - to what had been
agreed upon between the Province of Nova Scotia and Canada.
In Nova Scotia - a point of interest and a point of history - when Nova
Scotia entered and agreed upon, with the federal government, their Accord, they
had a little clause in there that became very important after we signed ours. It
was this: that if any other province had signed an Accord which gave that
province more benefits, the Province of Nova Scotia Accord would automatically
kick in, or would bring up to date a better revenue sharing if another province
had reached a better revenue sharing mechanism.
Mr. Speaker, that was essentially, I guess, the - or, I will put it in this
term. Nova Scotia said:
"...until the Province reaches a level of fiscal and economical capacity
well above the national average...".
Mr. Speaker, in the background paper for the recent Royal Commission, John
Crosbie concluded, for example, and I quote him, "It is clear to anyone who
reads this Canada Proposal what the objects, purposes and intentions..." of
the federal government of the day "...were with respect to the question of
who would be..." - not who should, but who would - "...the primary or
principal beneficiaries of the revenues produced by the oil and gas resources
lying off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador."
Yet, two years later, Mr. Trudeau and his energy minister and resources
minister, Jean Chrtien at the time, were still championing, or trying to
champion, another agreement. For example, Mr. Chrtien had hypothesized - and I
want to quote him because it is important. History plays an important part that
tells us, irrespective of who is in power in Ottawa, whether it was the federal
Liberals or the federal Tories, the intention of what our agreement ultimately
was can be seen: that we were, as a Province, supposed to be the principal
beneficiaries of the resources that lie off our coast.
For example, Mr. Chrtien said, and I quote, "Hibernia development, or
even two Hibernias, would probably not provide enough revenue to reach the
trigger for broader sharing - leaving almost all offshore revenue with the
provincial government."
Again, it is clear the the federal Liberal government intended for our
Province to be the principal beneficiary.
In 1984, the federal Progressive Conservative Opposition of the day offered
to sign a deal with the Province if they became the government. On June 14 of
that year, Premier Peckford of the day signed a MOU, or Memorandum of
Understanding, with the Opposition to this effect. About a year later, on
February 11, 1985, Premier Peckford and the newly-elected Prime Minister
Mulroney signed the Atlantic Accord. In 1986, the Accord was given effect by
enacting legislation both in the House of Assembly here and in the Parliament of
Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of the Atlantic Accord is spelled out in
paragraph 2(c), which I have here. It states the following, "[The purposes
of this Accord are:] (
c) to recognize the right of Newfoundland and Labrador to
be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores,
consistent with the requirement for a strong and united Canada".
It seemed, at the time, that such a statement was very clear. It seemed, at
the time, that the principal beneficiaries of that resource would, in fact, be
us over time.
Another purpose, Mr. Speaker, was spelled out in paragraph (
e) of the Accord.
Here is what that said: that the Accord is - and I quote, "to provide that
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador can establish and collect resource
revenues as if these resources were on land, within the province." That is
directly in the Atlantic Accord.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is clear to every member in this
benefit from oil and gas development offshore as if those oil and gas wells were
on land, as Alberta's are. And as we know, as we all know, Alberta, as a
province, because of the richness on land of its resources, has become
extraordinarily wealthy because of its patrolling resources.
So where is the revenue? The question needs to be asked. Where is the revenue
that we are supposed to be receiving? Currently, if there was ever an example of
injustice, of how the Canadian Confederation works, this Province is an example
on many fronts. The infamous Upper Churchill deal being one. One that we signed,
yes, but the federal government's inability in recognition of that injustice
to allow this Province to wield power across our sister province's border.
Yet, on the western side of the country other provinces enjoy that privilege and
right.
Another example, Voisey's Bay - and the Leader of the Opposition knows this
- that prior to equalization and corporate tax, this Province is scheduled to
collect $858 million on corporate tax from the Voisey's Bay agreement and
development. The federal government's share of corporate tax will be $563
million - and I am using approximate figures. Yet, after equalization clawback,
$1.3 billion will go into the federal Treasury and $71 million will come to the
provincial coffers. Those are two examples that we, as a people, live with each
and every day. Irrespective and exclusive of the partisanship that exists in
this House - and should exist, because that is the system we operate under - I
know that each and every member does not support that.
Now we come to the Atlantic Accord. Yet another example. When you understand
what the equalization formula in the country is all about, one of the only
federal programs that is enshrined in the constitution - and here is what it is
supposed to do, in principal. It is supposed to equalize provinces that are not
up to a national standard. The current program does nothing to meet that
objective. It does not equalize anybody. It has created a sense of dependancy.
It has fostered dependency. It continues to foster our dependency within the
confederation of the country. Unless, fundamentally, there are alterations made
to that principle than we, as a Province, not so long from now, are going to
have to face some other critical decisions.
For example: How is it today that we are sending hundreds of millions of
dollars into the federal coffers on all of our projects, yet this year, and
yesterday, the Finance Minister had to stand up - and whether it was a Finance
Minister from the Liberal Party or the Tory Party, the stark reality would be
the same, that we are going to be in receipt of $200 million less in
equalization this year. Yet, we have to see hundreds of millions of dollars off
our shores -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. E. BYRNE: Yet, we have to see hundreds of millions of dollars go into
federal coffers while we, as a people, have to make the types of tough
decisions, through no fault of our own, that we had to make yesterday. That is
the injustice we are seeking to redress, and that is the injustice we are asking
all members to deal with us and support this motion today.
For example, currently the federal government receives 86 per cent of all
revenues related to our petroleum resources; 86 per cent of offshore revenues
goes into the federal government's coffers. That leaves this Province with a
meager 14 per cent. No wonder we fight strongly for industrial benefits. What
choice do we have, when you see that type of revenue arrangement in place?
Over the life of these projects, for example, Mr. Speaker, and the projects I
am talking about right now, are the ones that have been in existence and are
producing, or are about to produce oil: Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose. Much
of the oil and gas revenues will be clawed back through the equalization program
we receive. That is even with the offset provisions that are contained in the
current Atlantic Accord.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I do not want to take up too much time. I
have much to say, but let me say this, what we are seeking, as a people and as a
government, from the federal government is important, it is critical to our
future economic and social well-being.
I want to spend a few moments answering the question that has been asked of
us as a new government: What are we doing about it? What have we done, so far to
date, as a new government?
I am happy to report, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and, more
importantly, on behalf of the Premier, that I believe that he, our Premier, has
been proactive and aggressive on the federal front in trying to achieve a
resolution to this. For example, the Premier has contacted each premier
individually to outline Newfoundland and Labrador' proposal to Ottawa. On
March 12, he met with ten of the other twelve territories and provinces who have
confirmed - ten out of twelve territories and provinces for the first time have
confirmed - that they are supportive of Newfoundland and Labrador's position
on the Atlantic Accord. Two provinces have deferred opinion at this time;
however, they have asked our Premier to be supplied with additional material on
the subject. I am quoting here now because these are important facts in
answering the question as to what this government has done. I think that the
Premier has been pleased, and so have all of us, that many provinces and
territories for the first time have recognized the legitimacy of our argument
and have supported our position.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been actively pursuing the federal
government to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to keep 100 per cent - 100 per
cent - of the provincial revenues from offshore oil and gas, and we believe that
we deserve no less.
The Premier met with Prime Minister Martin when he was first elected as
Primer Minister. Within a week of him being elected as Primer Minister, the
Premier of our Province was the first Premier to meet with him. This is one of
the priority issues that he laid on the table. In subsequent meetings and
conversations with both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources
for Canada, John Efford, I attended a meeting where we put forward the
discussion and the ideas that emanate and that are coming out of the private
member's resolution today.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has indicated this publicly, what I am about to say,
that he believes that the work is about to pay off, as do we all.
The federal government has indicated to him that any agreement to give
Newfoundland and Labrador increased revenues under the Atlantic Accord should
have the support of the majority of provinces, and we have that. The same
response was given to former governments, but the federal government cannot say
that anymore because we have that. We have the support of the majority of our
sister provinces.
Now, Mr. Speaker, today we are looking for a resolution from the House of
Assembly in the clearest, strongest terms, non-partisan, an expression of the
will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to be echoed in the Chamber
on the stated intentions of both former Liberal and Conservative governments,
and that is to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador is, in fact, the principal
beneficiary of our non-renewable resource.
While we are making tough choices, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of
the Province that the choices that we made in yesterday's Budget were not easy
for anybody. If anyone thinks that they were, or assumes that they were, or
purports that they were, I can tell you that they were not; but, when faced with
the situation that we have, it is even more critical and more important that on
issues related to offshore oil and gas that we must - it is not a question of if
any more, that we must - by whatever means necessary, ensure that the revenues
associated with these resources, all of them, 100 per cent of them, come to
accrue to the people of the Province through the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador; and we as a government, led by the Premier of the Province, are
demanding no less, Mr. Speaker.
This is not about, Mr. Speaker - and I want to re-emphasis this - this is not
about trying to be partisan. This resolution is requesting all forty-eight
members in the House today to send a clear and unequivocal message to the
federal government, that on this issue members in this Assembly have laid down
partisanship and have expressed their will in a singular way, and that is to
support the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, all we ask for and all we want is the ability to benefit from
what has been given to us, our God-given rights from our resources, to prosecute
them and to exploit them in an environmentally sound and responsible way. To
require companies in this Province, who operate and exploit those resources, to
allow them, yes, to make a fair profit but not to allow them to gouge us, so
that we, as a people, can benefit ultimately from the resources. On this sense,
Mr. Speaker, we do not have much time. These resources in terms of offshore oil
and gas are not infinite; they are finite. It means they will end; that the day
we begin to exploit them is the beginning of the day that at some point they
will be gone. So, we only have a certain window or a certain period of time by
which we can extract benefits from those, whether that be in knowledge transfer,
technology transfer, whether that be an industrial benefits, the creation of
infrastructure such as the Bull Arm Site Corporation and the ability to draw
benefits from that, we have a finite or a certain period of time to be able to
do that.
Mr. Speaker, there are all sorts of resolutions that have passed this House
and all of them, each and every one of them, are important, because I believe,
as does the Premier believe, that they reflect the aspirations of individuals
who were elected to represent the people of the Province; but, some resolutions
are unusually powerful. Strongly-supported resolutions on fisheries in recent
years have sent a strong and undeniable message, Mr. Speaker, to the federal
government. For example, I know the Premier has talked to MP Loyola Hearn, and
we want to compliment him today, for example, on his member's bill that
affirms the stand on custodial management that our Legislature affirmed many
months ago in an all-party non-partisan way.
We, on behalf of the Premier, want to say that he was overjoyed, as we all
were, that the House of Commons voted in favour of a stage of that bill several
days ago, with the support of many government members.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that resolutions like this, while not having impact
and in force today, that they do make a real difference and advance our case for
future change over the long haul.
Mr. Speaker, we urge members today to support this resolution. We ask all
members to stand with us today, not necessarily as government, although we are,
but let us take an opportunity and stand today, forty-eight men and women in
this Legislature, who were elected to do the best we could for the people we
represent.
In our view, this resolution today asks one simple but important thing. It
rights as a people to decide for ourselves where revenues should be spent, where
they should go, to whom they should go, and how we prosecute those. That is what
we are asking for, that is what we are demanding, and, Mr. Speaker, we are
asking all members to stand with us today to accept no less.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Just before I recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I would like to
welcome Mayor Andy Wells to the Chamber. I know that he has some interest in
this particular debate and I welcome him to our House of Assembly on this day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is good to see the old amalgamator up there looking at his friend from
Mount Pearl with a gleam in his eye. I know he made a great offer to the
government yesterday that they will find hard to turn down, I am sure. I see the
Member for St. John's Centre is glad he is here too. There is probably going
to be a private member's motion on this sometime soon.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to make a few comments today with respect to this
motion. I believe it is an important one. I am glad to see it here before the
House and I am glad to have an opportunity to stand and voice my support for the
whole concept, the whole motion and the whole notion and idea.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, just to make a comment: In listening intently to the
representation and the presentation made by the Government House Leader and the
Minister of Natural Resources, it is clear for the record that many of the
things he talked about as being flaws and why we don't have the money, what he
really articulated were difficulties with the equalization program, not
necessarily with this Accord or with any particular arrangement or contract but
with the equalization program.
So people would know, and so all members would know, while the Premier today
is out getting support from other premiers, which is good to see, for a
bilateral issue, an issue that is only of concern to Newfoundland and Labrador
single jurisdiction, including Ontario and Alberta, onside, agreeing that the
equalization program should be changed. The problem is, there is one government
issue from day one. There is no trouble getting support here in this Legislature
today, no trouble whatsoever. There is no trouble getting support with every
single living, breathing Newfoundlander and Labradorian. They would all want all
of us to vote for this particular motion. The trouble has been, and is, and
We have experienced speeches and good-sounding words from governments in
Ottawa that have been Conservative and that have been Liberal, but we have not
gotten the action. I wish this time, more than anything else, and I have said
this publicly, that our government in Newfoundland and Labrador, led by our
current Premier, has success that eluded a government that I led, a government
that Brian Tobin led, a government that Brian Peckford led, a government that
Clyde Wells led - because everybody was looking for this, by the way. Everybody
wanted this. That is one of the things that brings Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians together. One of the sad parts of it - and I will not dwell on it,
because this is something that we should champion - is that the current
government seems to want to paint me personally sometimes as a bit of an enemy
in this or something, that I am a bit of a bad guy. One of the things they talk
about is: Oh, the relationship was so bad with the former Premier and the Prime
Minister that they could not possibility get this deal.
Well, I will tell you, it will be bad with me when they treat us like they
have done for the last fifty-four years, forever, and I am glad to see a new
approach being attempted but I am not at all glad to see - because most of the
issues dealt with by the Natural Resources Minister and the Government House
Leader talked about the fact that we get $800 million, by the way, in Voisey's
Bay. We actually get it. They send it to us. They do not send it to Ottawa. They
give it to this Treasury, but then the equalization program sees us lose money
in equalization, so we do not get a great net gain.
It is not that we have such a terrible deal, that we let Voisey's Bay
Nickel and Inco take the money and send it all to Ottawa. They do not send it to
Ottawa. They send it to our Finance Minister. That is where the money goes; but
then, because we are standing up on our own two feet and doing some things
ourselves, the way equalization works is that, every step ahead you take, Ottawa
sends you three-quarters or 80 per cent of a step back. We have unanimous
consent in the country to change that, but it means nothing because the
we just saw them snub us again in the Throne Speech and in the Budget a few days
ago. The minister and the current Primer Minister, who used to be the Finance
Minister - a Liberal, by the way, and I am a Liberal - snubbed us again and
said: Come back in five years.
I took exception, and I still do, to the fact that our federal minister, the
Minister of Natural Resources for Canada, who is a representative from
Newfoundland and Labrador, said - well, here is the quote: You can't expect to
have your cake and eat it too.
I ask our Minister of Natural Resources, who has been here for a long time:
Did you ever hear our current federal Minister of Natural Resources make that
speech when he was in this Legislature? Not likely! He just made the speech you
just made. Now that he is up there in Ottawa, instead of fighting for us, he is
telling us that you cannot have any changes to equalization, you Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
It is as if somebody jumped into his body, somebody brand new. This is not
even the person we know. He goes to Ottawa and becomes a federal minister. The
Speaker himself was here and heard him make the speeches, impassioned speeches,
in this House about how we should keep what we do in Newfoundland and Labrador,
how we have a right to it. Now he would stand up, go in the media and say: Oh,
well, you should not be pushing for equalization changes. You cannot really
expect to have your cake and eat it too.
I find that offensive. I do not know about anybody else, but I find that
offensive. I hope that all of that gets overcome and that we do focus on the
Accord between Newfoundland and Labrador, as this motion says, and Canada, and
that we do find a way, because it is all, by the way, in the hands of Ottawa. We
would change - I know our current Premier and the current government would
change - the Accord any way they wanted to, to make sure we get the money, and
that we get to keep it and use it. We would change the equalization program any
way anybody wanted to, as long as the end result is that we get to keep the
money, we get to use the money and we get the benefit from the resource. Any one
of us would do that any day of the week. I would have done it three years ago.
Brian Tobin would have done it five years ago. They say: Oh, it was because of
the bad relationship.
Would anybody have described the relationship between Brian Tobin and Jean
Chrtien as a bad relationship? I do not think so. As a matter of fact, they
used to go around the country suggesting that Jean Chrtien thought of Brian
Tobin as his son. That is how close they were. Did anybody hear tell of that
before, that Jean Chrtien actually loved Brian Tobin? I do not know if it was
a myth spread around the land, but we were led to believe that they were so
tight, they were so cozy, that they would sort of do anything for each other.
They loved each other. Guess what Brian Tobin asked Jean Chrtien to do? He
asked him to give us 100 per cent of the money for the offshore. They loved each
other more dearly than the current Premier and Paul Martin could ever hope to
love each other.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. GRIMES: I am not pooh-poohing this new approach. The Royal Commission
suggested we try it. Let's try it! I am for trying anything that brings a
benefit for Newfoundland and Labrador, but I say to the members opposite, Mr.
Speaker, do not waste your time talking about: Well, you know, this new approach
is going to work. That Roger Grimes, boy, he was bad. He was really bad. You
couldn't expect him to get it.
Well, how come Brian Tobin didn't get it, who was Jean Chrtien's son?
That is how close they were. I tell you, the relationship thing, let's try it.
Let's work hard at it. Let's keep going. I think we have a bit of work to do
with our own minister, because I am disappointed in minister who says: You can't
have your cake and eat it, too. We need this and we need it to change.
Mr. Speaker, one other thing I would like to do. I think it is important and
it is timely. I would move an amendment to the motion, as well, to suggest that
we not lose an opportunity, because in getting 100 per cent of the benefits
there is one other piece of this whole Accord and this whole offshore that is
tremendously valuable to Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the 8.5 per cent
made the investment. They have gotten all their money back and then some, and if
the politcal will is there to give us - yes, I have a copy, Mr Speaker, and I
will give it to the House as soon as I read it into the record.
I will move the amendment, seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile,
that in the second resolve, "AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this
Newfoundland and Labrador to receive 100 per cent of the provincial revenues
from oil and gas off its shores" - that it continue to say -
"including the transfer to the province of the 8.5% share in Hibernia now
owned by the Federal Government." Because I do have, and we on this side do
have, this fear, because I have heard the Premier, Mr. Speaker - and I should
probably table the amendment so you can see if it is in order - I do have this
fear that I have heard the plan laid out by the Premier that I will ask for this
100 per cent first and I got some good signs that the good relationship is
working and we might be going to get it soon - we hear all that kind of language
- and then I will go back and ask for the 8.5 per cent afterwards. Because, by
the way - and the Minister of Natural Resources would know this - monetarily the
8.5 per cent is worth as much, or more, on an annual basis as the 100 per cent
of the revenues from the royalties - in cash. It is worth just as much.
There have been proposals made before. Let me suggest this: There have been
a dozen different scenarios suggested, and every time the only thing that has
been lacking has been the political will in Ottawa to say yes. That is why I
have also been saying, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government right now, and
the federal politicians, need us in the next little while. There is probably
going to be the first real election in Canada in ten years. I am glad to see it
coming. I do not like governments winning by default. I think they should earn
their way in. There is likely to be a real challenge this time, and I am glad to
see it happen.
I am glad to see a real election occurring in Canada, and whoever wins should
deserve our vote and whoever gets our votes in Newfoundland and Labrador should
be the people who will make a commitment to what this motion says today. That
should be one of the key issues, and I say we should get it in writing. I have
said it publicly, we should get it in writing before the election. We should
absolutely demand it, and that is why I am proud to stand here today speaking in
support of the motion. I would hope also, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members would
accept and vote for the amendment as well, just so that the House of Assembly is
on record. It does not tell the government how to strategize and how to
negotiate. The Premier has already said he is going to try to get the 100 per
cent first and go back for the 8.5 per cent later. What it will say is this
House agrees we should have both of it; that we, as politicians, believe we
deserve both of it. Now how the government goes about getting it is left to them
and their strategy and to development it, but I believe it is fundamentally
important for this Legislature to be on record saying: we believe, all
forty-eight of us, that we should get 100 per cent of the revenues and we should
have access to the value that is in the 8.5 per cent share as well because the
with interest and now they are going to either sell it to somebody else and let
someone else in Canada reap the benefits of our offshore or they will find a way
to transfer it, as the amendment says, back along with the 100 per cent share.
I will not go any further than that, Mr. Speaker, other than to say I fully
support the motion. I encourage everyone to vote for it and pass it. Again, I
wish the Premier and the government every single success that is humanly
possible to see the intent of this kind of motion actually come to fruition for
the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The Leader of the Opposition, seconded by the Member for Burgeo &
LaPoile, has put forward a motion. The motion reads: Mr. Speaker, I move the
following amendment to the motion before the House. That it be added to the end
of the motion; including the transfer to the Province of the 8.5 per cent share
in Hibernia now owned by the federal government.
The Speaker has conferred with the Table Officers and rules that this
amendment is in order.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to rise to join in the debate on this extremely important motion for
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and also to say that the amendment which
has been added by the Leader of the Opposition is certainly an appropriate one
and one that we fully support, and have for some quite some time, Mr. Speaker.
The whole notion of Newfoundland and Labrador having the benefit of its own
offshore oil resources, of course, is a matter of great debate and historical
significance, giving rise to actions before the Supreme Court of Canada much
discussion, which the Government House Leader has refereed to, in terms of
commitments made by previous Governments of Canada, including that of Prime
Minister Trudeau and Prime Minister Chrtien as well; notions at the time that
it was becoming realized that Newfoundland and Labrador had significant offshore
resources. We wanted, obviously, to be not only the principal beneficiary, we
saw ourselves as the people who had brought that resource with us into
Confederation with Canada, and we were determined to ensure that we were going
to have that resource, to do for this Province, what oil and gas had done for
the Province of Alberta, and for other provinces who are so lucky to have that
natural resource.
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad irony of this Province and one of the reasons why it
is today that we have to have, such as these motions - is that we have had,
throughout our history, significant resources available to people who settled
here, who were born here, and who made their lives here; whether they be in the
forestry, in the minerals of Labrador through the Iron Ore Company of Canada and
Wabush Mines in Labrador West; whether it be through the paper mills and the
forest industry, and of course, our principal reason for existence, Mr. Speaker,
the fishery for over 500 years. The sad irony is that those incredible resources
have not, in fact, made us wealthy and prosperous. They have indeed made certain
people wealthy and prosperous. In fact, made other regions wealthy and
prosperous but they have not made the entity, the Province and the people of
this Province as a whole, wealthy and prosperous.
When we look at the fishery, Mr. Speaker, for hundreds and hundreds of years
we did not see the capital and the profits and the wealth generated by our
fishery staying here; as perhaps it did in Massachusetts and New England where
the profits that were made stayed in the form of capital, were invested in other
types of businesses, banks and financial institutions, insurance companies,
other manufacturing institutions and built up the New England States around the
fishery so that the capital and the resources made a tremendous difference to
the wealth and prosperity of that region.
What we saw in this Province, Mr. Speaker, was that the wealth of the fishery
was brought back to England, or brought back to Portugal, or brought back to
Italy or other countries that were fishing off our coasts. Even in respect of
the people who settled here, Mr. Speaker, the people in most regard who ended up
settling here were those who were working in the fishery, not those who owned
the means of production, and the wealth that was generated here went somewhere
else.
It is ironic as well, Mr. Speaker, when looking at the court case that went
to the Supreme Court of Canada, when we talked about ownership of our offshore
resources, that the debate centered around when it was in international law that
the seabed resources became the ownership of the coastal state; was it
sufficiently matured in 1949 so that Newfoundland, as a Dominion of equal legal
status with Canada as a result of the Statute of Westminster in 1933; did this
entity known as Newfoundland in 1949 have, at that point, acquired, in
international law, the right to own the resources in our seabed around our
coast. One of the ironies, Mr. Speaker, is, if we had waited another five years,
perhaps, before Confederation, there would have been 100 per cent ownership by
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador of all of those resources just as if we
had stayed as a separate country, and they would be the same as if they were on
land.
It is perhaps a little bit more complicated than that, Mr. Speaker. It was
very clear that the big issue was going to be who was going to benefit from the
resource. Successive leaders in Canada - Pierre Trudeau has been mentioned, John
Chrtien has been mentioned, and others have been mentioned who gave assurances
that whatever happened, Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of this
Province were going to be the ones who would benefit from the resource, who
would share only with the rest of Canada when we had become a have province.
There was a lot of enthusiasm about that notion, Mr. Speaker.
The phrase that was being used as well: When this Province reached 140 per
cent of the fiscal capacity of the Canadian average province, only then could we
start to share. Mr. Speaker, the exact opposite has happened, and a review of
the Atlantic Accord and its consequences, the one that was signed in 1985,
prepared by John Crosbie, who is, of course, fairly knowledgeable on this issue,
having been involved in much of the debate over the years - his conclusion, in
writing a report for the use of the Royal Commission, was that, based on current
figures and the projections known at the time of this report being made, that in
fact the share of Newfoundland and Labrador of its offshore resources and known
88 per cent. So clearly the exact opposite has happened as what was contemplated
by the principles that were agreed upon, the commitments that were made, by the
We ought, in fact, not be here debating this. We ought to be full
participants in our offshore oil and gas activities in the way that Norway is,
by an ownership share, by an ownership share in our offshore resource. That
should have been the model on which the development took place, and I am glad to
see the amendment put forth by the Leader of the Opposition because that
recognizes that function as well.
It was interesting, Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago, I was doing some
research in preparation for discussion about royalties here in this Province,
and I looked at one of the annual financial statements of Husky Oil, or Husky
Energy, as it is known, which is the operator of the new White Rose project, a
partner in Terra Nova as well. They are also active in the South China Sea, and
make substantial revenue from a project there. Their partner is the Government
of China. The Government of China has a 60 per cent interest in the project, and
Husky Energy has a 40 per cent interest in the project. It is operated by Husky
Energy. That is the kind of model that we see in country after country that
takes control over and understands that the value of resources is dependent to a
large measure on ownership, and if you do not have ownership you are ending up
having to deal with issues such as we are dealing with here today, clawbacks on
equalization, various kinds of formulas, whether or not we can convince the
I want to talk about royalties for a moment, Mr. Speaker. When we get caught
up in this notion of whether Ottawa is a greater beneficiary than the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, we lose sight of the fact that the real principal
beneficiaries of our offshore oil and gas reserves and matters are the oil
companies themselves. The oil companies themselves are the principal
beneficiaries, in reality, of our offshore oil. The relationship between Ottawa
and Newfoundland and Labrador - where the beneficiary of the 12 per cent versus
88 per cent under the Atlantic Accord also exists for Voisey's Bay, I say, Mr.
Speaker. So, I do not think we should get lost in the notion that our offshore
oil, the solution to that problem is to treat our offshore oil as if it were on
land, because our resources that are clearly owned by the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador in Voisey's Bay nickel, those resources are clearly owned by the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yet, when you look at the impacts of a
project in Labrador - and I am relying on figures produced by Voisey's Bay
Nickel Company Limited themselves, to an environmental assessment panel - their
projections, prior to the project going forward, were that the provincial and
federal Treasury impacts would result in a benefit to the Province over the life
$4.9 billion, more than ten times as much. In fact, the numbers look extremely
like the 88 per cent and 12 per cent that John Crosbie has identified under the
Atlantic Accord. In fact, they are somewhat worse. It is more than ten to one
$417 million goes to the Province of Newfoundland, and the other $4.989 billion
cent.
Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem on our hands in making sure that we
extract revenue from our own resources ourselves by having proper income tax,
proper corporate taxes, proper other taxes in place to ensure that we have the
revenue. Yes, we are suffering from the clawback, but I say to hon. members that
the clawback on equalization only accounts for about half of the difference.
Before you even touch the impact of equalization, the imbalance is already there
to about three to one. Without the clawback, the provincial revenues, instead of
being $417 million, would be $1.49 billion or $1.5 billion. The federal revenues
would be $3.7 billion. We would still, without equalization entering the formula
fact, only about one-third, less than one-third, of the overall revenues that
the project would generate. So, yes, equalization is a problem both onshore and
offshore, but also the amount of revenue that we seek is clearly an important
issue as well.
If we looked at the revenues - and I talked about this the other day - that
we extract by way of royalties, and I used the example of Terra Nova because I
had pretty exact figures on Terra Nova available, those figures show that we are
seeing the oil companies get, by far, the lion's share of the revenues by a
long, long shot, and that we are getting, in fact, in royalties what would be
considered a paltry sum by comparison. Those figures, Mr. Speaker, are based on
revenues that have been shown by the filings, the shareholders, of participants
in the projects. The Terra Nova revenues, for example, for 2003, the value of
the oil produced was $1.89 billion and the royalties to this Province amounted
only to $39.5 million; $39.5 million to this Province on the production of 48
million barrels of oil at Terra Nova last year.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the member that his time has expired.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members. I do have a
couple of other points that I would like to make.
The point I am making right now is that the revenues that we are actually
receiving are less than what we should be receiving, by a long shot, so that has
to be fixed. It has to be fixed in the short term and it has to be fixed in the
long term. We need a significant change in the system of revenues. We need to
recognize that the time is running short for us to do that.
According to the most recent figures published by the C-NOPB, 40 per cent of
the proven reserves at Hibernia have already been extracted. Since November,
1997, oil has been pumped from the Hibernia Project and 40 per cent of the
proven reserves are now already gone.
The Terra Nova Project, which only started in 2002, has already extracted 25
per cent of the proven reserves, so we have, Mr. Speaker, to act quickly. We
have to get an agreement quickly and we have to pull out all of the stops to
ensure that, in Ottawa, not only do the government know about this but private
members know about this, that Opposition parties know about this, that we should
make it an issue in the next federal election, that we have to have a
full-fledged campaign to ensure that all of this is known.
We have seen, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years, that
events sometimes conspire to deprive us of our just entitlements; whether that
be from iron ore in Labrador, from the Churchill Falls agreement, and most
recently from Voisey's Bay. We cannot let this happen with our offshore oil
and gas, Mr. Speaker. We would be the laughing stock of this country if we come
to the point of producing one-quarter, then one-third, and then 40 per cent of
the annual need for oil in Canada, which we are approaching - we will be doing
that and yet be at the bottom of the list when it comes to per capita income. At
the bottom of the list when it comes to the ability to provide decent public
services for our citizens. At the bottom of the list when it comes to
unemployment rates. At the top of the list when it comes to the highest poverty
rate amongst people and amongst children.
We, Mr. Speaker, have an obligation to all of our citizens, to our children
as well, and to our children's children, to not let this happen. If there is
only one thing that can be accomplished by the members in this Legislature, let
it be that we redress the wrongs that exist in us getting our fair share, as a
people, of our offshore oil and gas revenues; through changes in the Atlantic
Accord, through increases in royalty payments, through better participation in
our projects and ownership share. We have proposed an energy corporation, Mr.
Speaker, that would guarantee that in forthcoming projects we have a provincial
Crown share in further energy projects. We should be the owners on an upfront
basis.
If the members of this House, on both sides - because we all have to work
together to do it, Mr. Speaker, but the responsibility clearly lies across the
way. But if we, all together, can accomplish one thing, and I do not care who
takes the credit for it - but if we can accomplish that we start getting our
fair share of our offshore oil and gas resource for ourselves and our children
and our children's children, then we will accomplish something.
I support this resolution and the amendment wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a real pleasure today to be able to stand and support this resolution.
I just want to refer for a moment, and I will take - as my colleague the
Minister of Natural Resources did - us down through a bit of history. Just look
at the resolution itself when it talks about - it says, "The main purpose
of the Atlantic Accord for Newfoundland and Labrador is spelled out in paragraph
2(c) ...to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its
shores."
I just want to make reference to that particular clause in the Accord. I just
want to read it for the record, Mr. Speaker. It says - paragraph 2(c), under the
heading of purposes of the Accord, "...to recognize the right of
Newfoundland and Labrador to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas
resources off its shores." This is an important point, Mr. Speaker. It is
consistent with the requirement for a strong and united Canada.
I think one of the things that the federal government, for years, since the
very beginning, have not fundamentally acknowledged in this debate is - the
Atlantic Accord, yes, is about Newfoundland and Labrador being the principal
benefactor of its offshore resources, but it is also about a strong and united
Canada, because as any country can be, as any nation can be, it is only as
strong as its various regions. In this case, it is Canada's provinces and
territories. The country, as a whole, can only be as strong as any one of its
provinces or territories. Any time a federal body, like the federal government,
puts itself in a position where it is using its power and using its control to
the disadvantage of one of its partners - in this case the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador - it lends itself to weakening the country. I think
that is something we all should be a little bit concerned about when a federal
government decides to use its power and control to weaken the nation as a whole
by imposing such a limitation and restriction on the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, just to put this debate in some kind of context, I just want to
- I was curious actually about the - I did not have a personal memory of that
event. I could not recall the detail of that signing event on February 11, 1985,
so I did just a bit of research this morning. What was interesting was listening
to - I just want to read into the record the comments made by the Prime Minister
of the day, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney. This is taken directly from his
speech here that day, when he talks about - I will read four particular points.
He says, "We also said that as a Government, we would recognize the
legitimate desire of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that the manner of
development maximizes the social and economic benefits to the province."
The Prime Minister goes on to say, the signing of this Accord, "It is
unquestionably an historic Accord, probably the most important agreement reached
between Ottawa and St. John's since Newfoundland entered Confederation nearly
36 years ago."
The Prime Minister that same day goes on to say, "We have adopted the
principle that the revenue sharing between the two governments should be
identical for all oil and gas producing regions - without discrimination."
Then it goes on to say, and he kind of concludes with this comment, "Most
of all, this agreement is about dignity for Newfoundland and Labrador...".
Madam Speaker, he goes on to read in that same sentence, "... long a
"have-not" province. Today..." - February 11, 1985 -
"...marks the beginning of a new era -- one that will enhance..." the
provincial economy through the collective accomplishments of both the federal
and provincial government.
Without wanting to read all of history, I think it is important to read into
the record just one more commentary from that day's event, and those are the
statements made by the Minister of Mines, Energy and Resources of that day, the
hon. Pat Carney. I just want to read one part of her statement that day.
"The Atlantic Accord is designed to facilitate the development of the vast
oil and gas resources in the offshore. It is based on three fundamental
concepts. The first is that the principal beneficiary of these resources should
be Newfoundland and Labrador because that is in the national interest." It
was in the country's best interest to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador
became the principal benefactor of this particular resource.
"The second concept is that these resources should contribute to energy
security for all Canadians, because that, too, is in the national
interest." Again, this was a document that addressed the interests of
Newfoundland and Labrador but also the national interests of the entire country.
"The third and final concept is that producing provinces should be
treated equally, in areas such as revenue sharing, whether the resource is on
land or offshore, because equality serves the national interest."
I think that is something that we should not lose in this debate. Here you
had, back in 1985, the day that this agreement was signed, the national minister
suggesting that this was an important and historic moment, not just for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador but for a nation, because it acknowledges
that as a partner in this federation we all share in the wealth, we all
contribute in the development, and we all share equally in supporting each other
as partners in the federation. That is one of the significant messages that I
think we need to be delivering to Ottawa, that they continue and refuse to
acknowledge Newfoundland and Labrador's place, acknowledge that under this
Accord we should be the principal benefactors. I think that is important.
One other piece of trivia that I will just read into the record, Madam
Speaker, the Premier of the day, the hon. Brian Peckford - and I think he said
this in all sincerity, because I think at that particular time, given the
sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister and by the federal minister, it is
easy to see why a Premier of the Province of that day would make this statement.
He goes on to say, "There is no other document in existence signed by
Newfoundland that has within it the ability to see this province truly grow and
prosper. There is no other document in existence that so clearly establishes
Newfoundland's right to have a significant say and control over such a huge
resource." That is the backdrop, Madam Speaker.
In 1985, the people who signed this agreement spoke very clearly. Both levels
of government, the representatives of both levels of government, spoke very
clearly. It was truly their intent, and inasmuch as in the document, over time,
people may have identified some flaws, and if we had known today what we now
know, and if we were back in time writing it we may have changed some clauses,
we may have strengthened it, we may have provided a greater protection, but
based on the commitment of the parties to that contract that day, and based on
the expressed, clearly expressed, intent - Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer but
I understand a little bit about contract law. It has always been my
understanding that when the parties clearly expressed their intent in the
contract, and they clearly expressed their intent of creating language to ensure
that what their wishes will be at that time become a reality, courts have always
ruled that the intent is obvious so therefore the contract is enforceable.
In this particular case here we have been a long time, in fact for the last
ten or fifteen years, trying to bring some order of justice to this particular
agreement. I think it is incumbent upon the federal government to finally
acknowledge that they have a legal obligation, and if not a strictly legal
obligation they have a moral obligation to speak to and to live up to the true
intent of their predecessors in honoring a contract that was entered into in
good faith by the residents of this Province and the residents of Canada, and
signed off by the Prime Minister of Canada, representing all of the other
provinces and territories, and signed off by the Premier of this Province,
representing all of us, people who lived in the Province that day, and future
generations.
As my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, we have a very narrow window here. If
we are not careful here - this particular Accord deals with a non-renewable
resource, and we are reaching a point in time in our history that, if we do not
get this issue resolved in the next year or so, it is going to be really to
late. Because saying to us in ten years time: Hey, listen, we should have
listened to you back in 2000-2003, it is going to be too late then. We have been
saying it for a long, long time now. We have been trying to convince governments
ever since then to enforce it in the spirit and intent in which it was entered
into, but we are fast approaching a time when it may be too late. In five years
time, it is probably going to be too late. We have a narrow window.
I was delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition, early in his comments,
talking about his commitment, his real commitment to want to endorse this
motion, and real commitment to show some co-operation. I think it is important
that we all, in this House, representing the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador, speak with a unanimous voice on this issue and clearly send the
message that we do want, we have always wanted, and we will always want, I
believe, Mr. Speaker, to contribute as an equal partner in this federation; but
in order for us to be able to do that we need to fundamentally have the ability
to be able to maximize the income that we have from our natural resources and
from our non-renewable resources, because this opportunity will not be there for
our grandchildren down the road. They will not have the opportunities that we
have today to try to make this significant change in this agreement.
I think one of the key issues here, and it should not be lost, even if Ottawa
today were to give us and step up to the plate and say that we recognize that
our claim for 100 per cent of our offshore oil and gas resources - the federal
government are not going to be in a situation where they are not going to have
any revenues. The federal government will still receive more than 50 per cent of
the revenues. There is still a significant piece of revenue here for the federal
government. I think that is one of the things that t