Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 19 May 1998 (43rd General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIII No. 27)
1998-05-19
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 19, 1998 HOUSE
OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 27
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before regular proceedings, I just want to rise and ask if the House
would send a message of condolence to the Ridgeley family, the mother of the Member for
St. John's West, and the grandmother of the Member for St. John's South, who passed away
just recently, if the House could send condolences to the Ridgley family in that regard.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we on this side would agree, and agree
wholeheartedly, and we would like to second the thought put forward by the Opposition
House Leader.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on Friday past, May 15, my federal counterpart announced
the 1998 management plan for Northern shrimp. I am pleased to inform hon. members that for
the second consecutive year, our inshore fishing sector is the major beneficiary of a
significant quota increase.
The Northern shrimp fishery, because of a major increase in its
biomass, presents one of the major fisheries development opportunities for our Province.
For this reason, the Province has made the strongest of representations to the Government
of Canada insisting that this Province be the principal beneficiary of any quota
increases. I am glad to report that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has announced
increases that have achieved our objective.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, due to the Northern shrimp quota increase, the
inshore sector on the Northeast Coast of the Province was granted access to the lucrative
stock for the first time ever, with a quota of about 10,000 tonnes. As a result, more than
eighty vessels with total crews of 350 harvesters participated in this new fishery in
1997, and another 400 people were employed in the shrimp processing sector. Considering
the fact that the inshore shrimp fishery did not start until July last year, this was a
remarkable development.
This year, this Province will again receive approximately 90 per cent
of the 23,100 tonne increase in the quota.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: And again, Mr. Speaker, the inshore sector will receive
virtually all of the increase. In fishing area 6 off the Northeast Coast and Southern
Labrador, the total allowable catch has been doubled for a total of 46,200 tonnes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Ninety per cent of the increased allocation will be
available to owners of inshore vessels, and another 312 tonnes will be available to that
sector in fishing area 4 in Northern Labrador waters.
In total, our inshore fleet now has access to approximately 33,000
tonnes of Northern shrimp,
whereas two years ago this fishery did not exist in that
sector.
Mr. Speaker, for the second consecutive year, this new inshore shrimp
fishery will generate new employment and investment opportunities both at sea and on land.
I anticipate that 1,000 fish harvesters will participate in this year's fishery, and
approximately 1,000 or more will be employed in the processing of shrimp before year's end
as new shrimp plants come on stream.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: I also note, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector's
confidence in this fishery is demonstrated by the fact the processing sector has invested
tens of millions of dollars into plant expansions or conversions to take advantage of the
new opportunities that Northern shrimp is providing. These investments are taking place at
such locations as Port au Choix, Anchor Point, St. Anthony, Port Union, St. Joseph's,
Clarenville, Charlottetown in Labrador, Bay de Verde, Valleyfield and Old Perlican.
Clearly, this will be of economic benefit in these rural areas.
I must also point out that in order to maximize the employment benefits
from this new industry, I have made it a policy this year that all shrimp must be cooked
and peeled before it is exported.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: All of the shrimp, Mr. Speaker, must be cooked and
peeled in this Province before being exported. Some flexibility will be provided for the
processing of whole cooked shrimp in a final product form as well. This, combined with the
increased quota for the inshore, and the fact that an early price settlement for shrimp
allows for a timely harvest, will also have the additional benefit of placing our industry
on a stronger footing in the marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, this new inshore shrimp fishery is welcome news indeed for
our fishery and our economy. It will have a landed value of approximately $50 million this
year, and an export value of upwards of $100 million.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his Ministerial
Statement. It was delivered prior to the House opening.
Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that when questions are asked to
the minister here regarding a federal matter, that he always shrugs his responsibility and
says: I am sorry, but it is not my responsibility. But when it is good news, the minister
will stand and accept responsibility. Mr. Speaker, the minister has taken a lesson from
the book of the Premier, I say to people opposite: Delivering good news but failing to
answer bad news.
This is positive news, I say to the minister, and the right people are
benefitting from this particular fishery. The biomass of the Northern shrimp is increasing
due to the decreasing of the biomass of Northern cod, and the people who should benefit
the most from this new particular fishery is the inshore sector. I congratulate the
minister for the effort he has put into this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: It is a positive note for my district as well,
where Fishery Products International is spending $11 million in the Town of Port Union
refurbishing the giant FPI plant there in order to process Northern shrimp. A plant that
was closed is now going to provide an opportunity for 150 plus people. That will generate
new life into that particular area. This is a beginning.
I say to the minister, he almost contradicts himself here. He said,
"I have made it a policy this year that all shrimp must be cooked and peeled..."
In the next sentence he said: I am going to allow some flexibility.
I say to the minister: Do not allow too much flexibility. It is
important that those jobs be maintained, and maintained where they are needed most, in
rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
Does he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for
presenting me with a copy of his statement before the House opened.
I would echo the statement of the Official Opposition critic that this
is indeed good news for the Province of Newfoundland, and it is nice to see that the
minister's efforts in making representations to Ottawa were successful in this instance.
It is very good news indeed that the inshore sector will benefit from the quota and the
new investment that is going to be taking place.
I am also very supportive of the policy that the minister is announcing
today, that all shrimp must be cooked and peeled before it is exported. This is amongst
many other provincial preference policies, and policies that this Province needs in order
to protect our jobs and employment. It is one thing that will be a constant theme in the
coming months leading up to - later this year the MAI will be attempted to be passed once
again. I think this type of provincial preference, like all sorts of other issues that are
very important to the people of this Province, are threatened by the MAI; and we must be
very vigilant about that. We will see whether the government is going to play a role in
convincing Ottawa to not enter an MAI such as being proposed now in Paris.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am please to announce plans -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FUREY: Did you want to go by leave?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.
Does she have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to rise and certainly acknowledge the efforts the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture has put into trying to secure these quotas for the inshore
shrimp fishery in this Province.
I also want to commend the groups of fishermen in Northern Newfoundland
and Labrador who, I know, over the last year have worked diligently to put their views to
the minister in Ottawa and to outline a plan for this future fishery for themselves.
I would also say, Mr. Speaker, that we have to have some policy and
legislation changes if fishermen who are onshore right now are going to be able to avail
and partake in this industry. I would have to say that much work still has to be done in
order to have their involvement and to make it viable. As you know, a lot of inshore
fishermen cannot upgrade their licensing because policies do not allow it. I think that is
where we have to make changes so that they can become involved.
I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the federal government
should be investing more money in the processing of these new fisheries, so that
communities, like Black Tickle in my district, that are adjacent to this resource, that do
not have the capital and the infrastructure to be able -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS JONES: - to partake, are given the opportunity to do so.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to announce plans to undertake
environmental and engineering studies during this year's field season in Labrador for the
proposed Churchill River Power Projects. This work will provide a better understanding of
technical issues leading up to the signing of a letter of intent with Hydro-Qubec. It
will also put the project in a good position to move forward on a timely basis during the
next field season should an agreement be reached as planned later this year.
Last week the Premier, myself, and other government representatives
participated in meetings with the Innu representatives. Mr. Speaker, I believe these
discussions were positive and beneficial for both sides. I am pleased to report that the
proposed field work has been discussed with Innu representatives in Labrador and they have
agreed that it is necessary for certain baseline studies to begin this summer in Labrador.
As a result of these discussions government has agreed, at the request of Innu
representatives, to provide financial assistance valued at $150,000 to the Innu enabling
them to participate in the environmental field work to be completed this summer. Both
sides have also agreed during the meeting to a confidentiality agreement and to meet again
later this month.
Mr. Speaker, Hatch Associates of St. John's has been selected to handle
overall environmental management. This will include overseeing a variety of environmental
field studies this year regarding archaeology, reservoir clearing, wildlife, fisheries and
line routings, amongst others. Hatch Associates is a local company that will employ
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and the estimated value of this work is in the order of
$250,000
AGRA Earth and Environmental Ltd. of St. John's has been selected to
conduct a waterfowl study in the area of the proposed transmission routes on the Northern
Peninsula and on the Churchill Valley up to Churchill Falls. The value of this work is
approximately $115,000. Again, this company with offices in the Province will be employing
local workers.
Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference for additional environmental
studies will be developed and issued within the next two months.
With regard to engineering work, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has
issued Requests for Proposals for final feasibility studies on both the proposed additions
to the existing Churchill Falls development and the proposed Muskrat Falls project. This
will involve geotechnical field survey work as well as additional engineering studies to
complete full feasibility reports. It will include the preparation of cost estimates with
an accuracy of plus or minus 10 per cent. A detailed construction
schedule will also be
developed for each of these developments.
As members are aware, the expansion to the current Upper Churchill
development would include the construction of a new power house and the addition of two
turbine generators, each with a nominal generating capacity of 500 Megawatts of power for
a total of approximately 1,000 Megawatts. For the proposed Muskrat Falls development, the
work would involve the study of the various alternatives for development of that site.
We should be in a position, Mr. Speaker, to announce the winners and to
award the contracts for the further engineering work within the next three weeks.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly support the efforts by government and the Minister of
Mines and Energy in the announcements today, because it is a first step of many steps that
must be taken in the negotiation between Hydro-Qubec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
before an agreement is finalized and reached between the two provinces. It is timely, more
than timely I would think; the environmental assessments that are being done, the hiring
of Hatch, the provision of monies to the Innu that would provide involvement to that
community and to the people affected by that community as this project moves forward.
Also, the minister announced the engineering studies with respect to
Muskrat Falls and the potential development of that specific site on the Lower Churchill.
We support that. Obviously, this field season is important to get that work done because
it would have an impact upon the negotiations that are occurring right now, I would think,
and whether or not, at the end of the day, a positive settlement is reached between
Hydro-Qubec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which will be beneficial for all people.
Mr. Speaker, we also look forward to when the minister stands or the
Premier stands and announces that the feasibility studies that will be carried out with
respect to the in-feed to the Island will be announced, and when that will take place.
Obviously, government knows full well that the importance of an in-feed to the Island is a
critical part of the successful conclusion of the Lower Churchill negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, let me finally say that any agreement that is in the best
interest of the people of this Province, we will not stand in the way of it; we will
support it, but we await the final details, the successful conclusion of negotiations
between the Province of Quebec and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, before we
take an opportunity to put our final stamp of approval on that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does
he have leave?
By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to hear that the very positive announcement made by the
Premier just a little over a month or so ago is moving forward to the detailed study
phase, which is very important to conclude.
I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Minister of Mines and
Energy announce that there is a cooperative effort being undertaken with the Innu, instead
of the kind of ultimatums that he was issuing the weekend before the announcement was made
that this project and a few hundred people cannot stand in the way of what the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador want. But it certainly appears that he has changed his tune a
little bit and is operating a little bit more cooperatively with the Innu who, as we all
know, have a very important stake in what happens in Labrador.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, these studies will be undertaken quickly and
properly. I look forward also to the engineering studies being undertaken -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: - particularly with respect to the power line to St.
John's, which is a very important part of the overall proposal.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, each year governments and stakeholders set aside a week to
increase attention and awareness to the importance of health and safety in the workplace.
I am pleased to announce, Mr. Speaker, that this week - May 18-24 - is North American
Occupational Safety and Health Week. This is a joint effort of Canada, the United States
and Mexico to simultaneously promote injury and illness prevention in the workplace and to
recognize the efforts of those who have contributed to the improvement of health and
safety in the workplace. The theme of North American Occupational Safety and Health Week
this year is `Occupational Safety and Health, Partners Together in Safety'. In Canada, we
are focusing attention on the prevention of illness and injury among young workers.
Mr. Speaker, to help raise awareness of occupational health and safety
in our own Province, the Department of Environment and Labour, along with other
stakeholders, have planned numerous activities. Throughout the week, the department is
running advertisements in various provincial newspapers and on radio stations. As well, an
information booth will be set up at the Village Mall on Thursday, May 21. Stakeholder
groups, such as the Federation of Labour, the Employers' Council and the Federation of
Municipalities, have sent mail-outs to their members informing them of the importance of
occupational health and safety.
In addition to these activities, Mr. Speaker, there is another very
important event which takes place at this time each year. I am referring to the
presentation of the Occupational Health and Safety Leadership Recognition Awards.
The Leadership Recognition Awards program is an initiative of the
Department of Environment and Labour. It is offered to all employers within the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador, and its purpose is to recognize individuals and
organizational efforts in the prevention of workplace accidents and injuries.
Last Wednesday, I had the honour of presenting the awards to the 1997
winners at a ceremony held at the Quidi Vidi - Rennies River Fluvarium here in St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inform hon. members of this year's
winners.
The first is the Award of Merit. This award is given to an employee or
employees who, through alert and correct action, saved a person's life or prevented
serious workplace injury. The award winners are Clarence O'Quinn, Don Skeard, Mike Hoots,
Bob Manuel, Toby White and John Walsh of Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., Stephenville, who saw
one of their workers crushed by a paper machine and were able to use pulleys and
come-alongs to rescue him. Obviously he is alive and well thanks to the work of these
people.
The second is the Volunteer Appreciation Award. This award is given to
an individual who volunteered his or her time to provide health and safety training to
promote an accident-free work environment. This year's winner is Bob Barry of TRA Grand
Falls-Windsor Branch.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR LANGDON: The third award is for Outstanding Safety Committee.
This award is given to the most proactive workplace health and safety committee that
identifies concerns and implements recommendations, performs safety audits, and shows
leadership. This year's award winner is the Occupational Health and Safety Committee of
Labatt Breweries, Newfoundland. By the way, this is the second concurrent year they have
won this particular award.
The fourth is the Health and Safety Program Award. This award is given
to a company whose leadership and commitment has resulted in the implementation of an
outstanding health and safety program. This year's award winner is TRA Grand Falls-Windsor
Branch.
The fifth is the Minister's Award of Excellence. This award is given to
a company that has demonstrated over time an improved safety record, enhanced product
quality, improved training courses and overall company success. This year's award winner
is McNamara Construction Company.
Finally, an award is available for innovative safety solutions.
Unfortunately this year there were no nominations for this category.
I want once again to extend congratulations to the winners of the
Occupational Health and Safety Leadership Recognition Awards for 1997. I applaud their
tremendous efforts and dedication to improved health and safety in our workplaces. I want
also to commend each of the individuals, groups and companies that were nominated this
year. Certainly their efforts should not go unnoticed and I encourage them all to apply
again next year.
Mr. Speaker, the theme of North American Occupational Health and Safety
Week reflects the importance of partnerships. Each and every one of us has a part to play
in occupational health and safety, as is evident from the Leadership Recognition Awards
program. I encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to reflect on what they can do
to ensure illness and injury are prevented in the workplace.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Due to the absence of the critic for this particular department, I am
pleased to rise and respond to the statement put forward by the minister. I, on behalf of
our caucus, want to congratulate the winners of the 1997 Occupational Health and Safety
Leadership Recognition Awards, and I want to applaud the companies, individuals and groups
who were nominated.
I am also pleased to compliment the minister in his compliments on the
prevention focus. As members know here, I have been an advocate of prevention strategies
in health care, in educational services, and I am pleased to endorse and to compliment the
minister for these initiatives.
I want to say to the minister, in his statement at the end of the
paragraph, where he says, "In Canada, we are focusing attention on the prevention of
illness and injury among young workers," I don't know why the word `young' is in
there. Because it should be all workers, I would say to the minister, not necessarily
young or old or any other group like that.
I also want to say to the minister that just recently, in doing some
research on prevention, I came across the February-March 1998 edition of Canadian
Health Care Manager . This particular publication is concentrating on these kinds of
initiatives. I say to the minister, at any time in Canada, since this is a Canadian focus
we are talking about, there is between 8 per cent and 12 per cent of the Canadian
workforce off on disability. This translates into about 55 million hours which are paid
for either by workers' compensation or a private insurance carrier. Of course, the cost
ultimately is borne by the employers.
I would say to the minister that we also have research in this
article
which says that $4 are saved for every $1 spent on disability management. It gives
recognition nationally to three or four companies, one of which has a Newfoundland
connection. They mention here nationally the great work being done by Gibraltar Mines
Ltd., by MacMillan Bloedel, by the (inaudible) Corporation. It mentions the work as well
of Inco, what they have done to handle their disability management strategies. It is
recognized here nationally.
I just wanted, if I could, to say to the minister some of the data on
Inco, because it is very interesting. Inco has -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: If I could have leave just to finish up the comment
on Inco.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to mention that Inco does have a disability management
program. It has been in place since the late 1980s. In 1987 there were 75,734 days lost to
disability in Inco's organization. In 1995 that was reduced to 11,345, and in 1987 there
was $30 million spent on workers' compensation. That has been reduced to $19.5 million.
Mr. Speaker, I compliment the minister. I know his House Leader does
not want to hear that, and he is trying to stop me from speaking -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: - but we also say to the minister, let us get on
with statutory review and the legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
Does he have leave?
By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to join with the minister in recognizing Occupational
Health and Safety Week in North America.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that in Canada we have about half
of the population of the United Kingdom, yet we have three times as many fatalities on an
annual basis. Seven hundred workers per year are killed in industrial accidents.
Mr. Speaker, in this Province alone, last weekend we had two fishermen
die on the job, one of the most unsafe jobs in the country, Mr. Speaker. So the focus on
Occupational Health and Safety, and the prevention of illness and injury in workers, is
very, very, important and cannot be overestimated.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the focus on young workers; there is good reason
for that. The reason for that is that young workers quite often do not know what their
rights are, and do not know that they have the right to refuse unsafe work. Not only that,
Mr. Speaker, the proportion of accidents and injuries in younger workers is very, very,
very high as a percentage of the overall workplace situation.
Mr. Speaker, they do not always have the kind of training that they
need in order to operate safely; they do not know they have the right to refuse unsafe
work; and quite often they are asked to do things they should not be asked to do, and are
expected to do them because they have very low job security . So it is very important that
workers understand their rights, and any effort by the ministry in promoting Occupational
Health and Safety is to be commended and appreciated.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the closure of BPS Imaging
Partnerships, I take this opportunity to apprise the House of pertinent information
regarding the matter.
Mr. Speaker, this government has been working diligently, through our
partnership with NewTel Enterprises, known as Network Newfoundland and Labrador, to
attract call centre business to our Province. This type of activity, which is increasingly
being utilized by the banking, insurance and other business sectors, is growing at a rate
of 20 per cent each year.
The demand for this type of activity has created an extremely
competitive environment. Therefore, governments that compete recognize that up-front
financial incentives are a necessary part of the equation in a company's decision on where
to locate.
Mr. Speaker, in the case of BPS, Network Newfoundland and Labrador was
in negotiation with the owners for six months before they successfully landed the call
centre, having competed against other jurisdictions offering incentive packages. Both
public and private sector groups approved the BPS project, Mr. Speaker. The decision to
provide a forgivable loan of $800,000 to cover start-up and equipment costs was made in
light of the stiff competition we were facing. To put the type of capital costs associated
with this type of business in perspective, Mr. Speaker, one piece of equipment alone,
called a predictive dialler, can cost $800,000.
The $800,000 was tied to a commitment of 840,000 person hours of work
over a four year period. For a period of time, Mr. Speaker, there were 210 people employed
at the call centre, the majority of whom were previously unemployed. This was an
investment in our people.
Mr. Speaker, BPS Imaging Partnerships consisted of two partners, both
with impeccable credentials. One has been in the call centre business for ten years and
was operating call centre businesses in Ontario and New Brunswick. The other has been in
the film processing business for thirty years and has a strong relationship with the Bay.
There was nothing in the background checks, financial information, or
business plan, that was required as part of the due diligence that we carried out, that
indicated in any way that this venture would not be successful. In fact, everything
pointed to a very successful business venture.
But businesses fail, Mr. Speaker. If governments did not try to attract
business because of the risk of failure, we would never have achieved the other successes
that we have. For example: the privatization of the Marystown Shipyard, where today there
are 1,100 employees; the St. John's Dockyard with 200 employees; Newfoundland Farm
Products with 300 employees. Widebody RV in Bishops Falls with thirty employees, and Lotek
Marine Technologies with twenty-two employees, are just two more examples of successful
businesses that we have attracted to the Province, and there are numerous others.
Mr. Speaker, we first became aware of difficulties with BPS Imaging in
January, when we were advised that there was a significant loss of revenue triggered by
the ice storms in Ontario and Quebec. It is common knowledge that the Canadian economy
suffered overall during the ice storms. The Conference Board of Canada said that the
storms will cost $1.6 billion in lost output. While this was one of the factors in the
demise of the call centre, there were also differences of opinion between the partners
which resulted in a dissolution of the partnership, with one of the partners remaining as
the sole owner of the company. Anyone familiar with business knows that this happens, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that this business has closed. More importantly,
I regret how the centre closed, putting 124 employees out of work. I have assured the
employees that I will do everything possible to make sure they get the money that is owed
to them. I will continue to work with NewTel, through our partnership in Network
Newfoundland and Labrador, to attract other call centres here that can provide employment
for our people, especially those who worked at the BPS Call Centre.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what a change in seven months. Seven
months ago, in August - October 27 and October 28, the Premier, standing in his place
announcing the tremendous economic impacts of this call centre, predicting that it would
have at least a $9 million spin-off for the economy over the next three to seven years.
Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement today amounts to nothing more
than one big excuse for government's failure to provide security for its investment in any
business opportunity for the people of the Province. I will not say much more than that,
but I will have an opportunity during Question Period to question the minister with
respect to what has taken place with this call centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By all means.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I see on the opposite side there is a very successful division of
labour between the ministry. The Premier delivers the good news in the fall, but it is
left to the minister to deliver the bad news in the spring when it all falls apart.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: A very sensible division of labour, I say to the
Premier.
Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that the $800 million is lost, although I
know the minister herself was trying to put a spin on it the last couple of days that it
was a contingent loan and, after all -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Eight hundred thousand, yes. That is all gone, and the
minister was putting a spin on it that this was a very successful training program. Mr.
Speaker, at a cost of $5,000 or $6,000 per job, I think there are cheaper ways to provide
the kind of training that the people got.
If I were the minister, Mr. Speaker, I would not be praising the St.
John's Dockyard as a success with 200 employees down from the 400 to 600 who working there
when it was operated by Marine Atlantic, who still should be operating it today, or it
should be operating on a better basis.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the minister's statement
with BPS Imaging and the call centre, I would like to ask the minister this question.
She indicated in her statement that government provided an $800,000
forgivable loan. Was that all the money that government put into this call centre? If so,
she can state it. If not, was there any more money, or in kind sort of support, given to
this call centre?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the $800,000 was put in to cover capital and
start-up costs, and that is customary when you are trying to attract this type of business
across this Province. Look at any other province and they have done the very same thing.
The federal government and NewTel, the private sector, Mr. Speaker, have also put money
into this initiative. This was approved by both levels, federal and provincial
governments, and by the private sector.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will ask the question again to the minister: Did government put any
more money, or in kind investment, into this company outside of the $800,000 she has just
indicated in her Ministerial Statement?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: The $800,000 was the extent of the money that was put
into this company. The company did apply for EDGE status. There is no upfront money that
comes with EDGE. If, in fact, the company meets the criteria under EDGE, then they are
entitled to their rebate of the payroll deduction. That, in fact, did happen, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: The logical question, Mr. Speaker, is: How much was
rebated to the company, as an EDGE company, with respect to under the payroll reduction?
So there was an $800,000 forgivable loan. How much more was provided,in terms of the
benefits of being an EDGE company,to this company?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly get the dollar value, but it
was nowhere in that vicinity.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: In light of the public controversy, the minister has
not even taken the time to understand what fully government - she is going to endeavour to
get it for us. I respect that. When she has it, I hope that she can provide it to the
House.
Let me ask her this question: What guarantees did government obtain
from the company that the public investment put in was secure, and that the provincial
Treasury would not be out, I would think, close to $800,000 to $1,000,000? What guarantees
were provided to government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat: The $800,000 that was put up
front was to cover the start up costs and the equipment costs, to do into the call centre
business. This is not usual, Mr. Speaker.
Having said that, the $800,000 was tied to a commitment of 840 person
hours of employment which would have translated to about 160 jobs a year over four years.
That did not happen, Mr. Speaker. We know that and the hon. member knows that. But the
$800,000 was tied to employment levels; it was a forgivable loan. If they had met that,
then we would not have been able to go back to them for the remainder of the $800,000.
Mr. Speaker, there is a company there, we know they did not meet their
commitments and we have told them that we expect them to live up to their commitment.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: They have just gone out of business and they expect
them to live up to their commitments.
Let me ask the minister this question: Is government a secured creditor
for the $800,000 forgivable loan?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, there were no secured creditors, either by
the bank, by NewTel or by HRD. There were no secured creditors. The first call, once the
assets are tallied, the first call on it will be Revenue Canada, the second will be the
employees. It is the employees who are first and foremost in terms of our concerns with
this issue.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister and government do
not invest their own personal money the way they have invested money in this situation.
We were told last August that this company had a licensed partnership
with Hudson Bay Company Portrait Studios nationwide for the marketing of its photographic
services. This partnership was used by government then, and by the Premier's announcement,
as a selling point for the deal and the investment into it.
Let me ask the minister this question: What was the nature of this
partnership? What was the nature of the guarantees that gave the government so much
comfort that its investment was secure?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my Ministerial Statement
earlier, the partners in this venture have incredible credentials. You have the call
centre operator involved in this who has been in business for ten years, and when they
came to the table, was doing call business activity in Ontario and in New Brunswick. You
have the Balsamo family out of Ontario. It is a film processing company and has been in
business for thirty years and has long standing relationship with the Bay. The Bay, Mr.
Speaker, obviously had enough confidence in these two companies to give them the licence
to do the portraits for the Bay right across this country. So clearly, everyone who came
to the table had every confidence in this venture.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister alluded, in her Ministerial
Statement, that there were some divisions between the partners. Can she confirm that late
last March of 1997 the Vice-President for Hudson Bay Company came to the Province, told
the employees that they were no longer an independent call centre and that they were now
completely owned by the Hudson Bay Company? When she confirms that, if she can, did that
have any impact upon this call centre closing down?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the ice storm, which had a
significant impact in terms of the loss of revenues, the other important thing to remember
here is that as a result of that there were some differences of opinion between the two
partners, which I mentioned earlier. That resulted in a dissolution of the partnership.
That meant the sole owner was then the Balsamo family, the film processing company.
The film processing company, Mr. Speaker, had no experience in the call
centre business. It was the other partner who, in fact, was used to running call centres.
This left the Balsamos as the sole owner of the call centre.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, how did government disburse its money,
the $800,000 forgivable loan? Was it all up front? Was it over stages, based upon the
commitments made between the partners to the Province, that when they met certain targets
that so much would be forwarded or did government provide the $800,000 lump sum, one
cheque, up front to this company?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Let me state again, Mr. Speaker, that what we did was
what is done for every call centre when they come looking for incentive packages. We were
looking to attract that first national call centre. We wanted to prove that we could do
this business and we can, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the quality of work that has been
performed by the employees.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: There is nothing to stop us from attracting further call
centres, Mr. Speaker. The $800,000 was given up front because it was part of the start up
and equipment costs that had to be covered. As I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Speaker,
one piece of equipment alone, the predicted dollar, can cost $800,000. That will give you
some idea of the types of costs that these call centres incur when they are setting up. If
there is one set up it is not an issue, Mr. Speaker.
Clearly you can see what the costs were. The $800,000 was up front and
that is no different than what was done with the Air Canada Centre in Winnipeg or United
Parcel Services in Moncton, New Brunswick or any other call centre that you want to go to.
It is the same practice. It is the business. If hon. members do not understand the
business of attracting call centres, that is their difficulty.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what I do understand is that when you
are handing out close to $1 million of the people's money you do it with some security and
some strings attached. That is what I understand, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The government's rationale for the failure - the
minister has mentioned it twice - is that the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec this winter
killed the company. It seems pretty incredible. You used it as a reason, I say to the
minister. If that was the case, was the company under-capitalized to such an extent that
an event like this could have spelled doom for the company, or was the government
concerned up front that the company was under-capitalized?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I say again, the impact of the ice storm was
felt throughout this country. If you look at the impact on Canada's economy overall, you
can see the impact it would have had on a company trying to do business.
People were going in to have their photographs taken. They were not
going to go in during an ice storm. The employees were down there booking appointments for
people to go in. These appointments never did materialize, Mr. Speaker.
Clearly, there was an issue here, but again I go back: I said that was
one factor, Mr. Speaker, of a number. I think the most important one here is the
dissolution of the partnership and what transpired after that.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that about 30 per
cent of the company's market would be in Quebec and they were meeting about 26 per cent of
that. That is my understanding, coming from comments made by the employees down there.
I would like to ask the minister this question: She has referred to the
dissolution of the partnership, have any of the other partners, since dissolving from that
company, come back to do business with government in any way, shape or form? If so, has
government participated, financially or otherwise, with any of the partners to date?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have another call centre operating, the
Cabot Call Centre, which is operating very successfully. One of the partners, in fact, is
operating that call centre. I would hate to think that the member opposite will make any
disparaging remarks about that particular call centre at a time when we know we can do the
business, we are doing it well and we are hoping to attract others.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I don't need the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Technology to put words in my mouth, because I certainly will not be making any
disparaging remarks about a company that is doing business in this Province unless there
is public money involved that isn't being accounted for or not being handled in the proper
way.
I will ask the minister again: If one of these partners is doing
business in the Province right now - and she has indicated another call centre - has
government participated financially with Cabot Call Centres, I believe is the name she
referred to? If they have, to what extent, financially, is government involved in this
operation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the same approach was taken with the Cabot
Call Centre as was taken with BPS. It was brought here, again, with the endorsement of the
private sector and both levels of government. Yes, the same approach was taken, and yes,
the financial commitment up front equated to about $5,000 per job.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, a final question for the time being. The
minister talks about this predictive dialler cost, anywhere upwards to about $800,000. My
understanding is that for the company that just went under, the cost was $500,000, which
was paid for by the Province. Where is this piece of equipment? The $800,000 loan that you
gave, Minister, a forgivable loan, that was used to pay for some of the capital equipment
up front. My understanding is that the piece of equipment she refers to cost $500,000. Did
government not find it necessary, in view of the fact this was a major investment in a
company, that should something happen they would have security, so that if this piece of
equipment were sold at least some of the people's money could be recouped?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I talked about the cost of setting up a call
centre. I talked about the cost of equipment and start-up costs. I mentioned, as an
example, what it would cost for a machine like a predictive dialler, which is, by the way,
still on the premises at the call centre.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I understand too that the federal
government participated through Human Resources Development. To that extent, can she
inform the House if any of the wages of the people who were hired by this call centre were
subsidized, and to what extent they were subsidized by the federal Department of Human
Resource Development?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we are going to do everything we can to make
sure those employees get the wages that are coming to them. Through the transitional jobs
fund, HRD did in fact help to subsidize the salaries for those employees. That is the
purpose of the TJF fund. It is to provide people with an opportunity to train, to find
employment, particularly in areas where they were having difficulty finding employment.
That is the purpose of the TJF fund. This fund was put to a good purpose at this call
centre.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Would the
minister inform the House when he expects the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to
announce the groundfish opening for cod in area 3PS?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, during last week's meeting with the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and all ministers across Canada, I questioned the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on what time he was going to make the announcement,
because a lot of the people, the harvesters and the industry, are quite anxious to know
when it is going to be made. He would have had it made, but he was reviewing some
scientific information he needed to take another look at. He said, give him a week to two
weeks and he would be making that announcement. That was last Wednesday, so I would assume
some time within the next seven to ten days.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista
South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister if he is aware that there have already been two
fisheries closed in that particular area, namely the skate fishery and the monk fishery,
because of the high catch of cod. I ask the minister if he has made the federal minister
aware of that situation, whereby fishers in this Province have been geared up, spent their
money to take
part in those fisheries, but because of the high by-catch of cod have been
unable to carry out their fishery in area 3PS, and when those people can expect to go back
fishing again?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, one of the bright looks in the groundfish
industry is in the 3PS area. It is not new news today that there is quite a substantial
amount of cod in that area. Yes, the hon. member is quite right, there have been a couple
of fisheries close because of the large amounts of by-catch of cod.
The problem the federal minister is having is that scientists gave him
some more information. We don't want to jump too quickly and open a fishery without
reviewing all of the information. I think that is the reason why we are in the position we
are in today; we acted too hastily, too quickly because of pressure from industry. The
information that was coming forth was not reviewed to everybody's satisfaction, the
decision was made too quickly, and as a result we had a total collapse of the groundfish
industry in Newfoundland. Six years later, we are still wondering if there is going to be
a fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador in the near future.
I would expect that after next week, when the federal minister
announces the 3Ps fishery this year, that all of those fisheries will resume, because one
of the things we are all advocating is that it will not be a direct cod fishery by the
larger boats, but whatever cod is allocated to the larger boats would be used for a
by-catch to harvest other species that they normally would not harvest or would not be
able to harvest. As you said, it is closed now because of the large by-catch of cod. So,
probably in a week to ten days.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a
supplementary.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, as you know, there were many problems experienced in the 3Ps
cod fishery last year. This year, the FRCC has suggested a quota of double the amount
taken last year. I think there was 10,000 metric tons allocated last year, and this year
FRCC is suggesting 20,000 metric tons.
I would like to ask the minister: What rules and regulations will he be
suggesting to the federal minister to make sure that the same mistakes are not repeated,
as happened in this particular area, as was put forward last year? I ask the minister,
what his own department is doing to make sure that every pound of fish that is caught in
area 3Ps is processed in a timely manner?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, when the 3Ps cod fishery opened in 1997,
we all would have thought that, after a closure of almost six years, we would have learned
something from our past. I do not think I ever saw, in my years living in Newfoundland and
in the fishing industry, a fishery persecuted so badly as it was last year.
We participated in meetings all of this year, not with the federal
minister but with the industry, with harvesters, with fishermen's committees, with the
processing industry, with the unions, with the local office, DFO, and I have said very
clearly, as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for this Province: If the mistakes of
1997 are repeated in 1998, I cannot stop the harvesting but I will stop every fish plant
in Newfoundland from buying groundfish if it is harvested in the manner in which it was
harvested last year.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are to the Minister of Education.
Last week, in the House, he indicated that School District No. 2 might
be considered as a pilot project in terms of teacher allocation and school board funding.
I was wondering if the minister might want to give some details on what he means by the
term, pilot initiative or pilot project, and how this particular designation of pilot will
help to solve the teacher allocation problem in School District No. 2?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I did not want to add any particular detail to that discussion at this
time, Mr. Speaker, because there are some discussions going on between parent groups in
the different communities on the Northern Peninsula, in particular in the Southern Straits
of Labrador and the school board. There will be a follow-up discussion with the Department
of Education after they have made their final decisions with respect to organizing the
school system for the year beginning September of 1998. I think any speculative comment at
this point in time, as to what the government may be looking at in future years, would
probably not be helpful at all in terms of issues that are being dealt with in the
short-term with respect to District 2 and other districts in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, a
supplementary.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Minister, this particular school district closed eight schools last
year and they are closing another three this year. Eighty per cent of the schools have two
grades in one class, three grades in another class or four grades, et cetera, et cetera.
Mr. Speaker, there are no programs in art education. One school has music offered to its
students.
I want to say to the minister: Is the minister today saying that he is
prepared to initiate a program-based curriculum for School District No. 2? Is that the
thrust of the initiative to which he has committed himself in consultation with the school
board?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We will have a discussion, not only with District 2, Mr. Speaker, but
with all of the school boards in the Province, through the Newfoundland and Labrador
School Board Association, as well as with the teachers of the Province through the NLTA,
commencing some time after school opens next year, as to what the future may or may not
bring with respect to teacher allocations in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Any speculative comment at this point in time would not be particularly
productive. I certainly would not want to raise expectations or hopes in any region of the
Province, particularly on the Northern Peninsula and the Southern Straits of Labrador,
that may not be able to be attained or deliverable by this government, by previous
administrations who spent a period of seventeen years responsible for delivering
educational opportunities. In fact, Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member might
lead people to believe with this line of questioning, the programming offered in rural
communities, in small schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, is better today than it was
fifteen years ago.
Mr. Speaker, it is not responsible for anyone to suggest - because we
found no way to do it anywhere in Canada, anywhere in North America, anywhere in the
Western civilized world, where any government has had enough resources to try and make a
blanket statement suggesting that a student in a small rural isolated area with a school
population of K to XII, less than 100, should expect the same program options that are
available in Mount Pearl, St. John's, Gander, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver. It is not
realistic. The programs are better now than they were a decade ago, and we are going to
work with the school boards without causing any undue expectation to see that we do what
is in the best interest of the students at the appropriate time.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford
Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Minister, last year responsibility for delivery of distance
education was transferred to the school boards. For the most part this has been a very
positive initiative, but at Garrigus Collegiate, for example, a teacher was taken out of
his math class to teach math 2201. Now, it so happens that his own students are taking
distance education ten feet away from the teacher, separated by a wall.
I ask the minister: Is that a reasonable approach for distance
education? Why would you not at least let that teacher teach his students separately, and
do distance education at some other time? Will you give that kind of new allocation to the
school board in District No. 2?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure the hon. member, if he wanted to pick any one particular
example, can try to portray it as being less than the ideal circumstance in any one given
instance. The fact of the matter is that because of the fact that a teacher in a
particular school on the Northern Peninsula is made available to offer distance education,
it means that not only the students in that school get access to that programming, but
students in twenty or thirty schools, not only in that district but in all regions of the
Province, get access to a program they otherwise might not be able to avail of during
their high school years.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that on balance, if you ask those students, if
you ask that teacher, and if you ask that school board, if they would rather see twenty,
thirty or forty schools with 200, 300, or 400 students have access to a program, rather
than see that teacher teach two or three people in the same building and no one else have
access to the program, they would all vote to have it delivered the way it is today.
Not only that, the hon. member I am sure is not suggesting that the
Minister of Education makes those kinds of administrative arrangement details in the
school system. It is done in conjunction with department officials, the school board,
school based administration, and they make decisions that are in the best interest of the
majority of students; because that is the only thing they are concerned about in this
whole system.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community
Services. Early intervention is an important part of dealing with developmental and other
concerns among young children. There is a serious lack of resources to deal with preschool
children who need assistance. The failure to provide those resources is costing our system
more in the long run. We are being penny wise and pound foolish, I say to the minister.
There are 17,000 preschool children on the Avalon Peninsula, and the
Janeway receives 300 referrals a year for speech pathology. All of these, I might say to
the minister, are intensive cases that need special particular corrective action. With
only five speech pathologists -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I see we have a new Speaker here.
These five speech pathologists cannot come close to doing the job, I
say to the minister, and the service is spread so thin it is not dealing with the problem
effectively. I just ask the minister: Is she aware of those specific concerns with speech
pathologists? And what plans does she have to provide corrective action to this problem?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand proudly today in the House to hear the Health critic finally
speak to the benefit of prevention and early intervention. That is why today I am going to
reiterate some of the initiatives that we announced in this year's Budget, based with a
picture - and I will show it, Mr. Speaker - of children's faces on the cover; for the
first time ever identifying programs and services for early childhood intervention, for
preventative services, a child services act looking at children under the ages of two
being cared for in their home, providing the types of supports and intervention that
children need. Because we believe, on this side of the House, that we must for the future,
and certainly beginning right now, begin putting real money into the whole system of
programs that focus on prevention and early intervention.
We have, through our National Child Benefit programs, Mr. Speaker,
allocated funding to put towards a number of issues. It is important to note that, as was
referenced in a previous report just a few days ago by the member, in fact, it takes a
village to raise a child. We are working very closely with our communities, with our
community health, and also with our own department, to focus on early intervention and
prevention, particularly as it relates to children, because that has been our priority and
that is why we focused on this initiative in our Budget.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No wonder she would talk about everything other than the question I
asked, because they have done absolutely nothing on this issue, I say, absolutely nothing!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: There is not $1 in the budget to deal with this
problem at the Janeway. Someone from my district went away, outside the country, for
$80,000 tuition for two years, to correct a problem in a young child that could have been
addressed and saved this system a lot of dollars in the long run.
I say to the minister, there is a six-month waiting list just to get an
initial assessment in this particular area, not even considering the period of therapy.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact that if you refer a two-year-old
child, you will get an assessment and you will get just minimal intervention, I say to the
minister - the child is almost four. In many cases the window of opportunity is closed.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his
question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister - and we are talking about speech
pathology, I say to the minister - does the minister feel the waiting list is too long?
And I ask her: Has her department done an analysis of what the long-term costs really are
by trying to be penny wise and pound foolish?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will say again - I do not think the member listened - when you have
allocated $10 million focused on prevention and early intervention, come-on -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would say to the member that we are focused on
children and early intervention, and he would know that every available speech pathologist
that we have been able to hire has been hired. In addition to that, we have also put back
in place a bursary program for other allied health professionals that are required in this
Province, Mr. Speaker.
So, while he might not want to hear it and listen to it, we have
allocated money, specific monies, for the first time ever. It is hard to accept, I know,
but that is the truth and that is the reality.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: And we look forward to implementing more
preventive programs.
MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.
Presenting Reports
Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a report of the
mineral licences and mining leases issued for the period April 1, 1997, to March 31 of
this year.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the annual report
of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities on the operations carried out under the
Automobile Insurance Act, 1990.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, I will on tomorrow ask leave to present
the following resolution:
WHEREAS the development of youth internship programs provincially have
allowed high school students direct linkages to the workplace, providing important
practical skills; and
WHEREAS these programs have enhanced educational partnerships with
employers, schools and provincial friendship boards to the benefit of our youth, they have
demonstrated useful linkages from schools to work, improving the future employability of
our students; and
WHEREAS industrial opportunities, especially in our resource sector,
will create many new employment opportunities for young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House support initiatives by
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that Human Resource Development
Canada continue its strong, meaningful, financial support for these very worthwhile
programs.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2. I would move that the House
resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on
Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!
Order No. 2, the Estimates.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I refer the Minister of Finance to page 27 of the Estimates. If we
could, we would like to continue on where we left off the other day when I was asking a
few questions there. I want to refer particularly to
Section 3.1.01, under the title:
President of Treasury Board. I note, in the Estimates under Salaries, that the salaries
went up from $123,500 to $135,000.
MR. DICKS: What number?
MR. H. HODDER: Number 3.1.01, page 27.
I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the minister might be able to give us
some reason for the increase and why, in the next number, subsection .03, there would be a
decrease in Transportation and Communications?
MR. DICKS: Yes, I believe the hon. member is referring to 3.1.01?
MR. H. HODDER: Yes.
MR. DICKS: The salaries, I think, were pretty much on budget. Last
year we had budgeted $125,700 and we spent $123,500. The base budget remains the same. The
only difference this year - the base budget is the same as last year, I believe, $116,000;
but on top of that, of course, we had the extra pay period of $4,467. There are salary
increases of $3,300, which is the 2 per cent roughly; step progression of $1,133;
temporary assistance and overtime of $2; and this contains my car allowance of $8,000 as
well, for a total of $135,000. All of those things add up. I think that is pretty much the
(inaudible) for each minister's office.
Transportation and Communications, these are the telephone costs,
including fax machines and cellular phones. It also covers the cost of the travel of any
Member of the House of Assembly to represent or accompany at official functions. That is a
total of $24,800; last year it was $40,500.
As I mentioned earlier, last year was a particularly active year with
the Churchill Falls stuff, the Innu land claims, things of that nature. In addition to
that, I had a couple of matters that were specifically assigned to Treasury Board, if the
hon. member will recall. One was Marble Mountain and the other was Newfoundland Farm
Products. We have been working closely with both groups to - in the case of Marble
Mountain, just to make sure that it is remaining relatively viable considering it is the
third bad winter season we have had. The other is Newfoundland Farm Products, and we have
been doing a lot back and forth with the Corner Brook plant and the members representing
that group to see about finding another alternate use for that plant.
The hon. Member for - it used to be called Mt. Scio - Bell Island. I
think it is now -
AN HON. MEMBER: Conception Bay East & Bell Island.
MR. DICKS: Conception Bay East & Bell Island, yes. He has been
doing a lot of work with me and has been travelling back and forth (inaudible). That is
the reason it is at that figure.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: Yes, that is (inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: The cheaper the price, yes.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: Not a nickel, I am afraid.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to repeat, under Transportation and Communications, that would
account for the $13,500 that was spent more than what was allocated last year.
MR. DICKS: Yes.
MR. H. HODDER: Given the fact that this year the same circumstances
apply - in other words, the assumption is that the Member for Conception Bay East &
Bell Island will still need to accompany the minister so he can keep things in order and
make sure that everything is ready for the minister, and his briefcase is in the right
place and all that kind of thing. Mr. Chairman, do we understand that the Member for
Conception Bay East & Bell Island will not be as busy this year - in fact not even as
busy as he was anticipated to be last year - because it is lower than the estimate for
last year? Or are we not going to be paying the same kind of monitoring to the businesses
and the Crown corporations that the minister noted a few moments ago?
MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we hope to be less busy with these
activities. The Farm Products matter has moved along. We hope to be able to reach a
decision on that in the next several months.
I would say that these Estimates are a matter of art and design. The
department puts in a figure. Sometimes they increase it; sometimes they leave it as it is.
I suppose it would have been easy to budget $35,000 and come in under, but we try to live
within our budget as much as possible. Sometimes some of those things are unforeseen.
As an overall matter, I hope I will travel a lot less this year. The
Innu land claims have been pretty much resolved. Bar none foreseen, you wonder how much
Churchill Falls itself may take up. The travel expenses are estimates that are sought at
the beginning of the year based on the usual amount of travel, and I hope this year will
be at the ordinary rather than the extraordinary end of the spectrum.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to move on to 3.1.02, Executive Support. I note that last
year the budgeted amount was $323,300; but, in fact, $477,500 was expended, for nearly a
30 per cent increase over the estimate for last year. Given that the minister would have
known beforehand the general outline of what the expenditures might be, and recognizing
what he just said, that a budget is a guiding document, not necessarily a precise
document, because things do happen and adjustments have to be made - that is recognized in
all budgetary processing - I wonder if the minister could tell us what happened to drive
that number from $323,300 for salaries up to $477,500 last year?
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not have all of last year's salary details, but I can point to two
additional salaries that were put in the department this year.
One was Mr. Sid Blundon, who was with another department of government.
He was assigned to Treasury Board to assist with the privatisation of Newfoundland Farm
Products. He is now down there pretty well permanently to act as government's liaison. As
members are aware, government has a very substantial financial exposure. It was felt that
during the time period that would be needed to do the transition to a privately owned
corporation, Mr. Blundon would serve in that capacity. That happened during the year, and
there was a salary allotment of $86,000 there.
In addition to that, because of the collective bargaining requirements
that we had - and we had pretty extensive negotiations last year - and knowing that Mr.
Smart would be moving on to other things, he was my ADM and is now in Forest Resources and
Agrifoods as the DM, we brought in Mr. David Gale as the executive director to assist with
us so that he would, I don't know if you would say learn the ropes. Mr. Gale had a fairly
substantial experience and background. I believe he was with the Libraries Board. We
brought him in as well. That was a portion of the salary there. It was about $32,000. I
believe that accounts for the majority of it.
I am at a little bit of a disadvantage, because while I have the
details for this year, I don't have the comparison for last year to say what the increase
was. I know Mr. Blundon was added and I know that Mr. Dave Gale was as well, part way
through the year, and I expect that accounts for the difference. Other than that, the
staff is pretty much the same. The base budget in the system is around $350,000 for the
secretary of Treasury Board, the comptroller general, assistant secretary, who would be my
ADM, and then the three secretarial staff.
So, other than the two additional employees who were seconded, really,
during the year, one for the privatisation of Newfoundland Farm Products, the other
because of collective bargaining, there would have been no other difference in our budget
year over year.
MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to then go to the Estimates for 1998-1999.
We have $408,500. If we have had the transfer of employees from one department to another,
and then they have been replaced, why then would the budget for last year be $323,300?
Yes, it did jump to $477,500. When employees moved, why would we not be back to $323,300
or thereabouts?
MR. DICKS: I can account for some of the differences. If you look
at the projected revised it was $477,500. What we did was Mr. Blundon is now no longer an
advisor to Treasury Board. He is with IPL, and I think his salary is being paid out of
there. So that our salary figure is adjusted downward by $86,000. Maybe the simplest thing
to do is for me just to run through what the current year's estimates are, because it went
up to $477,500 and is now down to $408,500.
If you take our salary base at $351,000 for three executives, that is a
secretary to Treasury Board, comptroller general, and assistant secretary. Of course,
secretary to Treasury Board is the equivalent of a DM position, and is in fact a DM
position. We have an extra pay period this year for all those salaries of $13,517, salary
increases of $10,000 - that is the 2 per cent that each will get - step progressions of
$790, rounding to twenty-four dollars. The $86,000 is added in and then taken back out.
Mr. Blundon's salary is out, and Mr. Dave Gale is $32,000. That is from now until August.
That figure may change somewhat because Mr. Smart will leave and Mr. Dave Gale will assume
his position.
If you add up all those figures onto the $351,000, adjust back out for
the $86,000, it will bring the salary this year down to $408,500. Let me just do a quick
addition here. Twenty-three thousand dollars is made up of the pay period and the salary
increases, about another $1,000 there for step progression, which brings you up to about
$24,500, and then Mr. Gale's position is about another almost $33,000. The big difference
last year was Mr. Blundon who came over on our salary for a while moved on to IPL and it
was adjusted back down afterwards.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I was not quite sure, from the initial
explanation, as to where these gentlemen were starting with the department and when they
were leaving, but it is quite understandable what is happening there. There is still a
substantive amount of overlap in terms of the budgetary time, the positions that they are
occupying and when they are going to be moving to other positions.
Mr. Chairman, I want to move to - in the same category - item No. .05,
which is Professional Services. We have $180,000 allocated there. Nothing was spent last
year. I guess the two questions would be: Why did we not spend anything last year and why
would we find it necessary to put $180,000 back in this year? What explanation can the
minister give us for that?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The $180,000 is a figure that was put in there as consultation fees for
privatization. As the hon. member knows, the policy of government is to privatize, not so
much government services as government enterprises. We did it last year with Newfoundland
Farm Products. It is a continuing effort of government to place in the private sector
activities that have been carried on by the government which really are private sector
businesses. The Marystown Shipyard falls in that category as well.
I am not a great fan of consulting services. I find a lot of times you
can pay too much for very little. By and large, most departments have the expertise to
conduct these matters internally and often find that the advice we get internally is
better than what we get externally.
Having said that, we did put in a figure in the event we needed to move
ahead with any privatization and if we needed any particular form of outside advice to
assist us. There are no particular ones on the horizon but we thought that, given the
nature and the breath of government, all those things fall to Treasury Board in the final
analysis for review. That figure was put in in the event that other departments identify
areas of privatization that they wish to proceed with and should it also be necessary for
us to engage a consultant.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Of course, the $180,000, if one does not spend it, then one is 18 per
cent along the way to finding money to balance next year's Budget, I say to the minister.
So it is better than putting it in certain cushions here I am sure. It makes it easier to
complete the process next year.
Mr. Chairman, on the Professional Services, I wanted to ask the
minister what the policy of government is relative to the advice they would get going to
the outside, admitting that last year they did not, and what the policy is relative to how
it determines the selection process for selecting outside consultants like that. Is that
done exclusively by the minister in consultation, or is there a public proposal process
that one would go through for consultations, that he has already admitted he is sceptical
of but wishes he would not have to do them this year like he did not have to do them last
year.
If you have to use this money, how will the general public, the
citizens out there, be able to find out that there is a public consultation process that
might be followed? How would they know about it? How would the minister determine the
expenditure of that money?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't know if the member drew the wrong conclusion from what I said.
It was not a public consultation process. What government does is it will go out and hire,
for example, a management firm or an outside group, basically a professional group, to
give advice as to how to manage the privatization, the figure to ask, how to draw up a
draft proposal for privatization and so on. It was not in the nature of a public
consultation on the whole issue of privatization. That is something that if we determine
it, where appropriate we would, of course, do it.
What I say to the hon. member is, it is a matter of discretion for the
departments concerned and for central government through Treasury Board, to determine
whether or not a department should engage a consultant. For example, we did this last
year, as I mentioned, in the Finance Estimates for specific advice on mining tax
legislation. The reason we did that was, we had no in-house expertise on that and we
sought the advice of two consultants who were both operating at the university level and
who had very in-depth knowledge of mining taxation systems in place like Australia and
South Africa, to help us develop models that we could follow.
When it comes to privatization, I know in the past government has hired
management consulting firms. I could name them but the hon. member would know the sorts
who are generally associated with accounting firms. I do not see anything and, as I say, I
am a little sceptical because often I find that there is a tendency to run off and engage
in external consulting when we have internal expertise available. So having said that, if
the hon. member asks about the process, it is usually left to the departments if they want
to engage a consultant, to come to government and suggest a process to follow, and that is
often by inviting proposals. As the hon. member knows, the expertise to do certain things
is rather confined, so what departments will often do is go to a number of known groups
with the expertise and ask them to invite and submit proposals.
Today, for example, the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy announced the
engagement by Newfoundland Hydro of a list of consultants, to whom it was giving work, to
come back and report to Hydro on the feasibility of doing Muskrat Falls and so on, like
that. That was cleared by a Cabinet committee.
It is a little bit different in Works, Services and Transportation
where we have a list of engineering firms, for example. What the department does, it
rotates among the qualified engineering firms in the Province, the engineering and
architectural work on major design projects, be it highways or buildings, hospitals and so
forth. So depending on the department, you would have to look at whether or not it is in
the ordinary course; and generally speaking, in the ordinary course of things, there is a
list of consulting firms such as engineers.
The Department of Justice, in recent years, has tendered for legal
services and if a particular issue arose where you needed a consultant and there was a
limited number of people, you would not go to public tender. You would do a proposal call
and they would indicate to the department what services they would offer and at what
price.
So that is a general outline as to normal governmental process we
followed.
MR. H. HODDER: As a follow-up question, which is not directly
related to the topic here - I have long held the view that many things that go out for
proposal calls could indeed be tendered. For example: When I was the Mayor of Mount Pearl
I went to public tender for financing of major capital projects, and found that it was
quite a sensible thing to do and would highly recommend it to any municipality or to
government. I know government goes to tender for certain financial services.
I want to get the minister's comments. He kind of indicates that he
would probably rather go to a public tendering process if that were feasible at all. I
come from a background of saying: If you can do it by public tender, then that is the
route to go. I am wondering if the minister has done any examination, within the purview
of his department and throughout the government, to increase the amount of work that is
called by public tender as opposed to just seeking the consultant process approach?
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The tendering policy of government does not fall within Treasury Board,
it falls within the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. Most of what
government would procure through the tender process are goods more so than services.
What I would say about the public tender process is that, often you
find with consultants, there is a narrow range of expertise. If you were to choose some
topics, for example, hydrology surveys, there is probably a limited number of groups that
have that expertise.
MR. H. HODDER: Two.
MR. DICKS: Exactly. It is a little bit different than supplying
banking services, for example. Where one knows that there is an ability in the private
sector generally to provide goods or services, we would generally tender for those. That
is part of the reason we tender for legal services, for example.
If you look at an area such as engineering the same is true. Banking
services, we in the Department of Finance do call for tenders for banking. In an area,
however, where you would be looking for a group to provide you with a $150-million
syndicated loan for the government - this year we may borrow as much as $400 million, $500
million or $600 million. What you do in a case like that is you go to a syndicate composed
of all the major brokerage firms, because no one of those brokerage firms would be able to
place all that money at a given time, and you agree on a fixed fee. It's standard in the
industry, for example, to charge about a seventh of a per cent, or seven-tenths of a per
cent. In some areas there is a standard fee.
By tendering for it, you don't get any greater value, and you have to
be concerned about the ability to comply with the requirement that government has. One
thing the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would not want to do is to try to place
an issue of $150 million and find there were not enough takers. In areas of finance in
particular you have to be very careful, because it's not only a matter of tendering, as to
who can place the money, but also where we can get it at the best rate.
For example, if we are refinancing an issue, as we did - last year we
had two Swiss issues that came due. One we did in Switzerland, because at the time the
exchange rate and the interest rate were low by comparison with what we would have to pay
in Canada. When we assessed the one later in the fall we found that it was cheaper to
borrow in Canada over the long term, by the best judgment we could make. Very often some
things really don't lend themselves to tendering. Standard banking services do. Matters of
higher finance are subject to finer analyses, and you generally engage the majority of the
group in the investment community to place those for you.
As regards a general program of tendering for government services, that
is within my friend's department, in Works, Services and Transportation. We have a public
tender act to follow, which gets criticized at times, but we certainly do comply with the
letter of it in engaging contracts with the public for goods and services.
MR. H. HODDER: If we could move on to the next section, which is
3.1.03, it is called Budgeting and Human Resources. It deals with the appropriation
provided "for the preparation and monitoring of the Provincial budget, collective
bargaining, classification and organization and management reviews, insurance services and
the formulation of financial, human resources and administrative policy within
Government."
Mr. Chairman, that is going to cost $1,616,200 this year. It seems like
there are going to be a lot of consultations on budget coming up this year, because we
only spent $1,589,500 last year.
I'm wondering if the minister can tell us why there has been a sizeable
increase; not a great big increase. What is he going to be doing with all the extra money
for those Budget - what is it called, preparation and monitoring of the provincial Budget?
Who does that preparation and monitoring, and why would that cost us $1.6 million?
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) all these people over the next three
years. The Premier said -
MR. H. HODDER: There is a three-year budget done.
MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier said, in one sentence, 7 per cent over
three years. What are they going to do with all these people over the next three years?
MR. DICKS: As the hon. Member for Ferryland knows, one can set
objectives, but realizing them is a different matter. What all these people do, Mr.
Chairman, is they help us establish a budget, but more importantly they help us keep on
target.
We monitor departments on a monthly basis, we monitor our revenues on a
monthly basis, and we have individuals who work closely with the departments, to put it
kindly, to ensure that our budgetary objectives are met, insomuch as we are able to
achieve that fine end.
The other thing that members are aware of, as well, is that in the
ordinary course of things government and Treasury Board have rules that they apply. These
individuals work with the departments to ensure that those are complied with as well. So,
we have a substantial group.
We also have insurance services. Hon. members opposite, I'm sure, being
healthy people may not be aware of this, but we have a lot of services that we provide and
monitor. We have group insurance, life insurance, dental insurance and so on, and we have
a fairly substantial group of people who receive and monitor the claims and work with Blue
Cross. As members know, we have held those premiums, and in fact have reduced them over
the last number of years; and that is challenging.
We also have a group in there, organization and management, which are
subject to constant complaints and submissions by many of our employees that their jobs
are underrated compared with others. We have a group that works very diligently to ensure
that our compensation systems are appropriate, and that complaints of our personnel are
handled in a reasonable way.
It is a fairly substantial group but, I submit to hon. members, a
necessary group to achieve, on the one hand, budgetary compliance and secondly,
administrative and employee fairness across the 35,000-plus people who work for
government. It is a fairly modest allocation.
I notice the hon. Member for Bonavista finds himself in total agreement
with me as always.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister if he could
give us a breakdown of the cost of the consultation process that he has gone through in
the last several years, of the visitation that has gone from community to community? It
generally occurs in January and February, in preparation for the Budget. It usually comes
down some time around the first to the middle of March, thereabouts, but this year a
little later than that.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could give me a breakdown as to the cost
that would be involved in that kind of preparation of the budgetary process and perhaps
indicate, as well, if there is any increase in that budgetary allocation for next year?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Chairman, those figures would be in the Department
of Finance, not in Treasury Board because that would come under their vote. It is hard to
segregate it, because I don't believe we had a special allocation last year for the Budget
hearings. When I say last year I don't mean this February because some officials of the
Department of Finance travelled with me so that would be out of the regular travel. My
travel came out of my travel vote and so on. The other costs would have been some printing
and so on like that.
So we have been very conscience of the costs and this year we changed
the Budget consultation process for several reasons. One was that we had a three-year
budget plan. The second one was that there were places we could not reach because we
visited nine sites. Now nine sites is challenging in the months of February and March in
Newfoundland, and to go beyond that - we had many demands and it was rather difficult.
So what we did this year was we decided to emulate the Angel Gabriel,
with whom my learned colleague is more than passing familiar, I am told. Rather than have
a series of visitations we had one visitation in the nature of an AV session. We had in
the morning a video link up with about seven or eight communities around the Island and
Labrador. Then in the afternoon session we had another ten or dozen. So in the whole day
we took into account a dialogue with about eighteen communities around the Island. It was
good because what we did this year that was not the case last year was - let me put it in
context.
Last year people would come in and present to myself and some local
members in some cases and we would listen, not comment and bring those thoughts back to
Cabinet. This year what we did was engage in a dialogue with the various communities. We
allowed people to put forward views and had other people comment on them. So it was more
in the nature of a dialogue as opposed to a presentation. That was constructive and much
less costly. The AV time, I would suspect, was not all that costly. It was probably in the
range of several thousand dollars compared with several tens of thousand of dollars to
travel and so on.
I would say that the process this year was very instructive. It is
always helpful to engage the public. If any of my colleagues were to engage in any
consultations I would suggest that that methodology is one that is helpful because not
only do people have an opportunity to present, they also have an opportunity to dialogue
and to discourse with each other. That, as we know, is perhaps more fundamental and
educational than a lecture as often is the case with presentations.
Thank you.
I may have to step out for a minute but my learned colleague, the hon.
House Leader, could carry on.
MR. TULK: Okay, sure.
What I will do is take some questions.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, noting that the Minister of Finance
has to step out, and for the benefit of the Government House Leader, we were discussing
page 27 of the Budget document. It is under 3.1.03, under Budgeting and Human Resources. I
was going to ask a question there relative to subsection .05 which talks about
Professional Services.
Last year it was budgeted for $50,400, of which $25,000 was used. Why
would we increase the Budget by 100 per cent, beyond what was actually used last year. If
we got through last year on $25,000, why would we want to increase it this year? There
must be some logic to that. If not, we should have left it at $25,000. That was the actual
that was used last year.
MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I would think - if you look at the
3.1.02.05, it says Professional Services - it is used to cover the government's share of
the cost of negotiations, conciliation interests and rights arbitration board meetings.
MR. SULLIVAN: There were no negotiations, boy.
MR. TULK: Here we go. You cannot give answers. The hon. gentleman
is right beside himself today over there. I do not know what the problem is.
I would think that those numbers are pretty flexible. Depending on what
happens in a given year, you might spend all of your budgetary amount or you might not. I
would say to the hon. gentleman, I guess it is put in there, more or less, to say that
there is enough to cover it, and if it is not used it is probably transferred to some
section of the Budget to be used somewhere else. I would think it is more a safeguard than
anything else.
MR. H. HODDER: Of course, it could be another $25,000 added on to
$180,000 (inaudible) category. That makes $205,000 of the several millions of dollars
needed next year to be able to balance the Budget.
Mr. Chairman, why don't you look as well at the fact that last year
Purchased Services was budgeted at $92,700. It actually resulted in the expenditure of
$100,800. It is down this year to $82,900. I was wondering if the minister might be able
to tell us why it went up by 10 per cent last year and, compared to last year, why it is
down by 20 per cent this year?
MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I will take this under advisement for the
hon. member. Again I understand this is the cost of printing the annual Budget,
advertising tenders, government insurance, meeting rooms rentals and all related expenses
associated with the pre-budget consultations, negotiations, conciliation and arbitrary
board hearings.
If I could, one of the things that the hon. gentleman might keep in
mind here, is that in the pre-budget consultations this year there was a different format
used. I do not know if it is the case or not, but it could very well be one of the factors
that is being considered here. There was a pre-budget consultation that was done by
audio-visual from somewhere around the Province using the communications network that we
have in place in the Province. It is my understanding, to be frank with you, that we have
found that process to be a great deal cheaper than it would be if you had to take two
weeks and travel all over the Province with the necessary staff and so on.
So maybe that is the reason why it is built in there, but the hon.
gentleman, I am sure, will supply an answer when he comes back.
MR. H. HODDER: I think last year you had hook-ups to eighteen
different communities.
MR. TULK: Yes. I am not sure if it was eighteen or twenty-one, but
it was a fair number of communities and it was all done within one afternoon. I think the
cost, if I wrote it correctly - I remember the Minister of Finance made a comment on it,
and don't hold me to this - was somewhere around $10,000. I can assure you that was
probably a lot cheaper than having people travel around this Province for two weeks.
MR. H. HODDER: I would tend to agree and it also might have had a
greater impact in terms of the immediacy of the commentary.
MR. TULK: As a matter of fact, most people who were involved with
the whole process found it to be very worthwhile, from the feedback that we have received.
Not only could they communicate with government but they were also communicating with each
other.
MR. H. HODDER: If I could, since the minister raised the issue
here: Did you have a breakdown? I have seen the communities listed somewhere in the
information that does come out to all hon. members. Is there any intention this year to
further expand that, to be able to have more communities, to be able to participate from
their own local communities in the formulation of the Budget process?
MR. TULK: As you say, it was basically more or less an experiment
this year, to see if it would work. I think the results - the Minister of Finance might
want to contradict me - from what I have heard, it was very successful, and I have no
doubt that he will certainly be considering bringing in other communities, because you can
do almost as many communities as you want to within an afternoon or a couple of days? I
have no doubt that he would want to expand that as far as it is possible to do. I think
this kind of meeting, this kind of consultation process, is going to increase rather
dramatically in government in the coming years anyway, because the cost of travel, the
cost of hotel rooms, and all that kind of stuff, is far more costly and far more
inefficient than the type of pre-Budget consultations that the Minister of Finance
undertook this year.
The question from the hon. gentleman was: Are you considering
increasing the number of communities that you will look into in your new method of
pre-Budget consultations? I told him that I think you might.
MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we considered that. I should say that
one of the differences is that there is a limited number of communities that you can hook
up by video, but the number of audio hook-ups is much greater. What I hope next year is to
be able to have a greater number of communities where you can have video back and forth.
This year what we did in the afternoon session was, we used the audio and had the video on
our side imputed into the government web site, and that worked very well. It is a good
illustration of what one can do creatively with modern technology.
The difficulty one has is in terms of the number of places, how many
you can productively do. To do eighteen in the run of a day is a fairly substantial
number. So it is always a question of measuring productivity and people's desire to have
input against the futility of doing it in a certain fashion. But we review it each year.
This was a different way of doing it this year, and I thought it was very successful. We
may look to expand that next year, yes.
MR. H. HODDER: These Budget consultations were also on the regular
Internet.
MR. DICKS: Yes.
MR. H. HODDER: What was the response through the Internet, not
through your video? There was also a possibility of responding by way of e-mail. What was
the general response by e-mail consultation?
MR. DICKS: We had a fair number of inputs via e-mail and via fax.
People are using those technologies much more. I am surprised this year. I think we had -
I do not know if it was 160-odd, either e-mails or faxes. I could get the hon. member the
breakdown. I just do not have it with me.
It is, I think, sufficient to say that people are much more aware, I am
sure, as he is, if he is on the Internet; you are starting to get a lot more e-mails to
your office, and people looking for information and so on. That was true this year. I know
the number of e-mails this year, I believe, was up substantially over last year.
MR. H. HODDER: Yes, and that is a positive thing.
MR. DICKS: Oh, absolutely.
MR. H. HODDER: Many of the schools, of course, are hooked up
through Distance Education and other methodology. Have they been accessed as well for the
budgetary consultations? In other words, these communities where Distance Education would
be located, they could be hooked into the provincial network fairly quickly. Have you
considered using that particular methodology? I say that because these are all in the
small rural communities, and we talk about rural Newfoundland. I was wondering if you
considered making that methodology available to those small rural communities?
The possibility is there for use, it is owned by the public, and
possibly letting ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in rural communities, who might
not otherwise have access or input, participate in the preparation of the Budget.
MR. DICKS: That is precisely what happened this year. We had people
in Springdale and Port aux Basques, for example, and even Stephenville - which is not a
rural community - who did take advantage of it. Several of the sites were at the
government facilities as well, at the hospitals or at the community colleges. So it is a
good method to tie people into it.
With regard to the schools themselves - I am thinking of the elementary
and primary and pre-secondary high schools - the difficulty you find is that in order to
involve a lot of people in the community who want to be involved, a lot of times they are
working during the week so it is inconvenient to
schedule it during school hours. So you
tend to find that Saturday, for this type of thing, would be the day where you would get
the best selection of people who could be available. Now, having said that, there would be
nothing to prevent high school students or those people taking part; but it is in the
nature of things that an evening session or a weekend session works better in terms of
getting greater involvement of the greatest number of people.
MR. H. HODDER: Of course, from my perspective I have always
advocated for community use of schools.
MR. DICKS: True.
MR. H. HODDER: If they are there on Saturdays and Sundays, they
should be used.
MR. DICKS: Probably the must underutilized asset in the Province,
aside from some of our roadways.
MR. H. HODDER: Yes. The building doesn't cease to exist after 3:00
p.m. or 5:00 p.m., or on Friday evening. We should be using those facilities for more
public purposes than we do.
MR. DICKS: True.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to go back to one other
comment on this section, and that is the Purchased Services. I was asking this while the
hon. minister was unavailable. I am wondering why it was at $92,000 last year, it went to
$100,000, and now it is back to $82,000. The hon. Government House Leader did share some
information, but in order to avoid, shall we say, repeating the thing, because he did
indicate he was taking copious notes and he was going to bring back the information later
on, I am wondering if the minister would permit me to ask for his comment on that so we
could finish up this section?
MR. DICKS: Is this 3.1.03, or .04?
MR. H. HODDER: This is 3.1.03.06, Purchased Services.
MR. DICKS: What we had last year in this category is, this includes
the cost of printing the Budget, advertising tenders for government insurance, meeting
room rentals, and related expenses associated with pre-Budget consultations, negotiations,
conciliation and arbitration board hearings. That is a figure that includes a variety and
host of things.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman.
I believe now that the hon. Member for St. John's East has a battery of
questions that he has been anxious to ask, and just cannot wait -
MR. DICKS: Which are eagerly anticipated as well.
MR. H. HODDER: Being the critic, he has advised me that now is the
time for me to let him get those questions on before we run out of time.
CHAIR (Penney): The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, I will just continue on from where
the Member for Waterford Valley left off. We are on page 28 of the Estimates, dealing with
Strategic and Human Resource Policy. We see that: "Appropriations provide for the
human resource management function within Executive Council, Department of Finance and
Public Service Commission; and the development of service quality initiatives,
government-wide training and development initiatives and strategic human resource
plans."
Mr. Minister, maybe before we get into some detail with respect to the
actual figures, I wonder: Could you be of some assistance in enlarging on exactly what is
meant by `the development of service quality initiatives' as it relates to strategic and
human resource policy.
MR. DICKS: There is a belief in government that we can always do
things better. The emphasis on service quality is something that has fairly broad currency
across the private sector as well as governments. The idea is to try to inculcate in our
employees the idea that we can do things better, and that we have an obligation to do it
as well as we can for the public we serve. I guess it is trying to determine ways that we
can better serve the public. We have a group of people dedicated to that initiative to
make people aware of, and to think about, what it is they are doing in their daily jobs
and to find ways to achieve results that the public would want.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Are there people specifically dedicated to service
quality initiatives? I mean, people hired within the department or within Treasury Board
whose specific job description is to deal with service quality initiatives?
MR. DICKS: Yes, that is the case. I am just looking for the salary
details here. That was the function, originally, of the Public Service Commission. What
happened as a consequence of some of the changes that were made were these positions were
put out into the departments. It was felt that rather than have it all centralized at the
Public Service Commission, it would be best done in the departments where you had people
who were more intimate with the department, who knew the workings of the department, and
rather than just generalize theoretically about how to better deliver programs, to
actually have that done at the departmental level. For example, in our department we have
three positions right now for people as staff training and development officers. We also
have a career development officer and a clerk in that particular area.
I suspect if you go back - and I am just dealing with strategic, or
rather with the service quality - If you go into each department I think you will find
people specifically devoted to personnel training. This would be, to some extent, fairly
central for us because we also administer, for example, the larger number of programs
across government, and I am thinking particularly of programs to integrate disabled people
into our workforce. We have a program that we call `The Opening Doors', but also within
departments we are helping them coordinate the training of staff as well. That would be
the component that we would have, and that is approximately five people in the department.
I am sorry, there is another WPEO as well.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: So, do these people work in concert with, you
know, individuals in other departments on a day-to-day basis, or are they primarily there
to advise and work with Treasury Board or other offices within the Department of Finance?
MR. DICKS: Well, we do both to an extent. We have our own people
but Treasury Board is one of the central organizations of government, so a large part of
what we do is to develop policies that are consistent across government. For instance,
Classification and Pay would be there as well. I suspect that these people do both.
We have been attempting over the last year or so, after program review,
to devolve to the departments a lot of the decision-making that used to reside in Treasury
Board, and we are taking on a monitoring function. What we are trying to do right now is
coordinate with the departments, plans for skills enhancement if you will, further
education and so on. The departments are primarily responsible but we would try to
coordinate that across government. So these people would work with our own employees but
also with the departments themselves to develop training programs.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: So, is it fair to say they are relatively new
positions?
MR. DICKS: Now, that is a good question. I frankly do not know if
these are totally new positions or if these people might have held them elsewhere and then
been put in our department after we devolved some of the responsibilities from the Pubic
Service Commission. If you like, I could probably get a clear breakout as to - my notes
only would have this year's Budget details. I would not have it from two or three years
ago, to say whether or not the people I mentioned have always been there. I cannot say
because some of these - we have been in transition over the last year or so with program
review, so I would just have to double check on that.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Before we leave that, I wonder: Is the minister
familiar specifically with the types of service quality initiatives? Are there those that
stand out in the minister's mind that were dealt with specifically, say within the last
fiscal twelve-month period? Are there particular initiatives, contracts, programs, that
were in fact the mainstay, I guess, of those individuals whose job it is and whose mandate
it is to develop these service quality initiatives?
MR. DICKS: We have been doing a number or broad-based things. We
first of all had public service reform that we have been carrying out, which is a broad
initiative across government. The other thing that we do is: we have in-staff training
sessions; we have our own meetings; we also send our staff off on training seminars, such
as in finance. We would send people off to - I specifically asked that we identify people
who go on a course on derivatives that was in Montreal, so we are fairly active in
promoting it.
I guess I am a little suspicious of great, broad-based things, and we
are going to change the world with this new initiative we have. I think there is danger in
us all of `sloganeering'. You know, you have gurus of management theory, you could come
along now with - and it seems that each book season there is a new one that becomes
evident as being the prevailing one, so we emulate the Japanese until we find that their
economy is in tatters for reasons that were not apparent, so then we run off to the newest
management guru who will find some new theory that we should all espouse.
I'm a little suspicious of all that, but at a basic level we try to
instill in people a sense that the job you do is important, is a job that you should do
well, and you try to find encouragement. What I would like to develop over the next year
or so, if we can, is a way of rewarding people for jobs well done. What we are lacking in
the public service, in my view, is some sort of incentive system. It could be cash or it
could be some other sort of awards system. One thing we don't do very well, if at all, is
to recognize exceptional performance.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: You mean within the public service?
MR. DICKS: Within the public service. I think we promote people
that we deem to have done a very good job, but there are other people who probably won't
be promoted or who don't get promoted, for whatever reason, who deserve equal recognition.
If there is a service quality that we can improve, or help instill in people a sense of
quality, it is to recognize exceptional achievement. We don't have any kind of system that
does it in a -
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Didn't the Public Service Commission have some
program in place whereby public service was recognized on a regular basis? If so, did it
terminate, I guess, when the role of the Public Service Commission appears to have been
downgraded to some extent?
MR. DICKS: I don't think there was a program that would satisfy
most of the concerns we would have. You know, we get our twenty-year pins and your
twenty-five-year certificates and things like this, but there is no incentive based system
in the public service to compensate people for new ideas, for handling a budget, arriving
on target, or bettering it. We are trying to move to a system of business plans for
departments whereby they set out what their initiatives will be for the year, how they
will achieve them, and how they manage to stay on target and so on.
It's a fairly complex thing because government is a large organization.
We employ over 35,000 people. If there is an initiative we have to try to do something
with, I believe it is to try to find ways to recognize exceptional service, so that people
will feel an incentive there to do well.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Would these people who work within the service
quality initiatives be people with an economic background?
MR. DICKS: Within my department?
MR. OTTENHEIMER: I'm speaking again specifically of the service
quality initiatives, those individuals who are employed specifically in that branch of the
department. Would these be people specifically with an economic background or -
MR. DICKS: No, it has more to do with human relations than it does
with fiscal awareness or implementation.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Transportation and Communications, under
section
3.1.04.03: You mentioned there were some travel implications with respect to Strategic and
Human Resource Policy. I don't know if you are in a position to elaborate on that, but we
see an expenditure in the 1998/99 Estimates, proposed, of $28,200. Is that reflecting the
point you raised earlier?
MR. DICKS: Yes. Part of what we do is to allow people to travel to
worthwhile conferences and so on. That is where that would come. If you look at the
category before that, .02, this would be the area where you would have membership and
conference registration fees. We encourage our people to be active in their professional
associations, if it's appropriate. It also includes funding for payments to Workers'
Compensation on behalf of injured employees as well. That is unusual, because we don't
have that in other government departments.
It is the travel, it is the membership and conference fees, which
doesn't amount to a lot of money. In this case it is high because it includes our Workers'
Compensation. We encourage people to take advantage of seminars, ones that are educational
and can help them improve their skills.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Under Professional Services, again under the same
heading, we see a figure budgeted and revised, again in the 1998/99 Estimates, identical
to the other figure of $12,700. I wonder if you could give some indication as to the
nature of these services, and to whom they are provided, and they are provided by whom.
MR. DICKS: This is a vote for the hiring of consultants to come in
to deliver specialized training courses. It could be in any number of things across
government. It could be occupational health, I suppose, although that is one we generally
coordinate through the workers' compensation group. It could be in human relations, it
could be in financial management; a host of things. It could be in health policy, for
example, things like this.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: So again, this is an expenditure for anywhere in
government, not necessarily directly for the benefit of those individuals within Strategic
and Human Resource Policy?
MR. DICKS: Yes, exactly.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: I notice in Revenues; we have a Federal Revenue of
$4,300. Again, that figure appears to be constant with the figure both budgeted and
revised for '97 and '98.
MR. DICKS: Yes, the next two categories, .01 and .02, what we do is
- the federal government participates with us from time to time on courses that we
sponsor. So we would charge them a fee for service. The $58,000 figure there, as well; we
charge back to departments an amount to defray the cost of covering these as well. What we
have done over the last couple of years is changed some areas within government so that
where one department of government provides services to another, we do a charge-back just
to make the department more accountable. It is very easy to make demands and use services,
but if you ar