Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 27 March 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 6)
2002-03-27
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 27, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 6
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
On Tuesday, March 26, the hon. Government House Leader rose on a point of
order. The point of order was that Oral Questions in the House should not
require an answer involving a legal opinion. He stated that there had been two
or three questions of this nature asked, and the Chair took the matter under
advisement.
In reviewing Hansard, the Chair saw three questions involving, I guess,
asking about legal opinions. The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay
North asked the Minister of Fisheries if he had asked for legal advice on a
certain matter. The other two questions were from the hon. the Member for
Labrador West, asking the Premier to quote a
section of the statutes and to
table a legal opinion, and asked what these legal opinions were.
Beauchesne is quite clear on these issues; 410.(13) states,
"Questions should not seek a legal opinion or inquire as to what legal
advice a Minister has received." Beauchesne 411 states, "A
question may not: (1) ask a solution of a legal question, such as the
interpretation of a statute."
It is clear that while it is not out of order to ask a minister if he has
sought legal advice, it is inappropriate and out of order to ask the minister to
disclose the opinion.
The Chair has, on many occasions, asked all members for their co-operation in
formulating questions so that they are in compliance with our Standing Orders
and Oral Questions and other parliamentary authorities that we use in this
Chamber.
I want to draw members attention briefly to Beauchesne 410 and 411
again, which clearly define how questions should be structured. It says, 410.
"...
(5) The primary purpose of the Question Period is the seeking of
information and calling the Government to account.
(6) The greatest possible
freedom should be given to Members consistent with the other rules and
practices.
(7) Brevity both in questions and answers is of great importance.
(8) Preambles to questions should be brief and supplementary questions require no
preambles. Supplementary questions should flow from the answers of Ministers.
(9) Questions should not repeat questions already asked although this does not
mean that other questions on the same point are out of order. ...
(12) Questions
should not be hypothetical.
(13) Questions should not seek a legal opinion or
inquire as to what legal advice a Minister has received." 411. "A
question may not: (1) ask a solution of a legal question, such as the
interpretation of a statute. (2) seek information about matters which are in
their nature secret, such as decisions or proceedings of Cabinet or advice given
to the Crown by the Law Officers."
I draw hon. members attention to these rules because, as I have said in the
past, I have asked hon. members to keep these in mind. I am asking them again to
follow these guidelines when they are putting Oral Questions.
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in debate in this House, the Minister of Works,
Services and Transportation stood - I quote from Hansard - and said, "The
hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's - I went to Ottawa looking for
$100 million to do the Trans-Labrador Highway, and while I was there I also
talked to Paul Martin to see if he could come up with $100 million for the
research for Placentia & St. Mary's so we could start negotiations with
Inco." He was referring to his meeting of March 14, I believe, in
interviews I have looked at.
Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention from sources that the minister did
not speak to Mr. Martin. I am rising on a point of order to give the minister an
opportunity to say if he did, in fact, speak with Mr. Martin about the $100
million that Inco has been looking for, for research and development for the
hydromet. When did he speak with Mr. Martin? Where did he speak with him? And,
what were the details of his conversation?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To that point of order, the Chair can only take what hon. members say in the
House as being accurate at the time. Really, the hon. member ought to have
raised this yesterday, immediately after the member had said that. In any case,
in this House, there has always existed a difference of opinion and different
interpretations of matters between two hon. members. In this case, it certainly
appears that one member has a different opinion than the other.
There is really no point of order.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today and recognize the Labrador
Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited who are holding their Biennial
Convention in L'Anse au Clair today.
This company, which is owned and operated by Labrador fishers, has played a
huge role in the economy of many communities in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair. They currently have viable fish plants operating in L'Anse-au-Loup,
Mary's Harbour, Charlottetown, Pinsent Arm and Cartwright, and employ hundreds
of people across the district.
The Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited is certainly a leader
within the fishing industry in this Province and in the country. They are to be
commended for their innovation and prudence which has led them to their
tremendous success.
On behalf of the constituents in my district, I would like to thank and
acknowledge the General Manager, Mr. Gilbert Linstead; President, Mr. Frank
Flynn, and their Board of Directors for their contribution that this company has
made to rejuvenating communities that were so adversely affected by the cod
moratorium.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, March 26, mention was made in the House of the
recipients of the Futures of Newfoundland and Labrador Youth awards.
I would like to draw special attention today to one of those recipients, Zach
Goudie of Grand Falls-Windsor, who has been honoured in the category of linkages
for fostering community partnership.
What Zach has accomplished in our area is truly impressive, and he has won a
great deal of admiration for showing such leadership skills at a relatively
young age.
Even though he is still a high school student, he has demonstrated a talent
for inspiring those around him, teens and adults alike. Through his own
initiative, he has brought together young people, private citizens, community
leaders and officials of government in order to strike a special committee.
The aim of the committee is to create a strong network that links young
people throughout the area and gives them a strong voice and an avenue to
participate in their community. This committee has created new avenues of
communications and action by uniting individuals and groups across the
generational divide.
Zach puts what he has done in perspective by saying: When you work with
others, you realize that networking can help get things done and that building
partnerships is vital for anything to succeed.
Now that, Mr. Speaker, is what I call a winning attitude.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. LANGDON: I ask leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, to read a Members'
Statement.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, it is both an honour and a privilege for me to
rise in this hon. House today to offer congratulations and extend best wishes to
my wife's parents, my in-laws, Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin and Dorothy Loveless of
Seal Cove, Fortune Bay, who will celebrate their 62 nd wedding
anniversary on Good Friday, March 29.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Mr. and Mrs. Loveless were married at the Salvation Army
Church in Seal Cove, in 1940. Together they had ten children, twenty
grandchildren and eleven great-grandchildren. Mrs. Loveless has spent her life
caring for others as she raised her own family as well as caring for her husband's
parents at home until their passing at the ages of ninety-seven and ninety-nine
year.
Mr. Loveless worked as a logger and later as a provincial public servant with
the department now known as Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. and Mrs.
Loveless continue to live at Seal Cove, where they are held in high esteem by
members of their family and the community.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will join with me in congratulating
Benjamin and Dorothy Loveless on their special day.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to congratulate a young lady from my district, Jenine Browne.
Jenine Browne of Memorial University Women's Sea Hawks Basketball team is a
graduate of Fatima High School in St. Bride's, now in her second year at
Memorial University where she is studying Kinesiology.
During her first year as a Sea Hawk, Jenine was her team's point leader
with an average of 14.5 points per game. Jenine was selected to the 2 nd
Team Atlantic University Sport All Stars and named to the Canadian
Interuniversity All Rookie Team. Jenine was also named Atlantic University Sport
Rookie of the Year.
Jenine was also selected St. John's Athlete of the Month for November 2000.
During her rookie year she was also named Newfoundland and Labrador Athletic of
the Year. Jenine is also enrolled full-time and carries an academic average of
As and Bs.
In her second year as a Sea Hawk, Jenine led her team to their second
Atlantic University championship in three years. She scored 22 points in the
championship game. She led her Sea Hawk team in scoring, as well as the Atlantic
Conference and the entire nation, in scoring averaging 21.2 points per game.
Jenine has been selected as a member to the Canadian Interuniversity Sport 1 st
All Star Team. She is the only person selected for this team East of Ontario.
Jenine has been named the Atlantic University Sport Conference Most Valuable
Player and the Atlantic University Sport Tournament Most Valuable Player. She
led the tournament with 24.5 points per game.
She has been selected Molson Athlete of the Month for the months of November,
December, January and March. She has been selected The Telegram Athlete
of the Week many times. Jenine is the top scorer in Canada as of this year at
the university level. She has led her team to a 17-3 season record. She has been
invited to attend Canada's National Team training camp in May.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MANNING: This is camp is for players to play for Canada this coming
summer in France. I have known Jenine Browne all her life. She is a fine young
lady, a superb athlete, and a positive role model for our young people.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to acknowledge the tremendous achievements of Roger Jamieson,
the former President of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador (H.N.L.). Mr.
Jamieson has served on the HNL executive for the past four years; two years as
treasurer and the past two years as president. In that time, he has overseen the
hospitality industry in this Province grow to an astounding $700 million a year.
HNL is the largest industry association in the Province and has over 720 members
representing all sectors of the tourism and hospitality industry.
During Mr. Jamieson's term, HNL has achieved a new found sense of
legitimacy. The strength of the association has grown to a point where both the
provincial, as well as the federal government, consult Hospitality Newfoundland
and Labrador on any tourism-related legislative changes and how they might
affect the industry.
The working relationship between HNL, the Province, and ACOA is excellent.
Mr. Jamieson has prided himself over the last two years on the continuation and
building of those relationships. Hospitality Newfoundland has worked very hard
at selling Newfoundland and Labrador to the world as a unique place to visit.
The work is beginning to pay off. Last year we saw a 40 per cent increase in
non-resident tourists to this Province and thanks to the exposure of the recent
movies, we intend to see that many more. Most people in businesses will visit
this Province thanks to the new Convention Centre here in St. John's.
The tourism industry in Newfoundland and Labrador continues to grow. The work
of organizations such as HNL and its former president, Roger Jamieson, cannot be
overlooked as they are facilitating much more growth. Mr. Jamieson will continue
now in the position of past president with the executive.
I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Roger
Jamieson on his successful term, for two years, as President of Hospitality
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to say how happy we were on Sunday, around noon, to learn that
Wayne Smith, his twelve-year-old son, Terry, and his thirteen-year-old nephew,
Stephen Wheeler had amazingly survived this past weekend while lost in Labrador.
The story could have had a much different ending, Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Smith had
panicked rather than do what he did, erect a shelter, light a fire, and wait to
be found.
Mr. Speaker, the weather conditions at the time were less than ideal.
Temperatures were in the minus twenties with wind chills dipping below minus
fifty, creating blizzard conditions. Even though the weather conditions were
terrible, a tremendous search effort was organized and conducted.
Mr. Speaker, as MHA for Labrador West, I would like to thank, on behalf of
all residents of Labrador West, especially the families of those who were lost,
the following people and organizations: the Volunteer Ground Search and Rescue
Team in Labrador West, whose training and knowledge of the local area and
conditions make them indispensable in any search; cabin owners in Esker who
happened to be at their cabins for the weekend; Emergency Measures Organizations
who responded quickly to the search; the Labrador West and Churchill Falls
detachments of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary; CF(L)Co, who provided a
helicopter; Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, wholly owned and operated
by the Iron Ore Company of Canada, who made available two helicopters, a
portable power plant for the search and rescue command post, and a train to
transport supplies and rescuers; the Steelworkers Union, Local 5795, President
George Kean; Lawrence O'Brien, MP for Labrador, and his Labrador West office.
Search and Rescue out of Halifax had a Labrador helicopter dispatched -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Search and Rescue out of Halifax also had a Labrador
helicopter dispatched and a Hercules aircraft ready to leave Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, I was in contact with many of these groups over the weekend as
the search was being conducted and, believe me, everybody gave 100 per cent.
I spoke with Wayne since his rescue and, I can tell you, he truly feels a lot
of gratitude to everyone who assisted in ensuring this story had a happy ending.
Wayne will be personally thanking everyone who took
part in the search because,
as he said to me, people put their lives in danger to find them and choppers
flew in conditions in which they probably would not normally have flown.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the pilot of the chopper who found him was a
friend Wayne went to school with many years ago.
Mr. Speaker, Wayne is very proud of his son and nephew for their help and the
manner they handled themselves throughout this ordeal. All three of them were
found in good condition.
I ask this House to join me in applauding the efforts of all those involved
in the search and rescue effort, and also to Wayne, Terry, and Steven for using
their experience and inner strength to survive in what can be a very unforgiving
area.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, by leave?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Music
Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador President Roger Skinner, who
passed away suddenly this February while performing in support of the Big
Brothers/Big Sisters Celebrity Secrets Variety Show at Mile One.
Mr. Skinner has been active in the music industry since 1968 as the drummer
for the Ducats, a Newfoundland based rock and roll group. He also had
considerable experience as a studio musician during his long and successful
career.
Roger Skinner had been quite active within the Music Association
organization, promoting Newfoundland and Labrador artists through participation
in the ECMA awards, and preparation for the upcoming Juno's this April.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in expressing
condolences to Mr. Skinner's family, and be cognizant of the contribution his
work and volunteer achievements have made to our Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in a press release yesterday entitled, Highway Robbery; Province
Has Broken Labrador's Trust, the hard-working and devoted Member of Parliament
for Labrador, Lawrence O'Brien, said that the raid of the Labrador
Transportation Initiative Fund was beneath despicable and disgraceful, in
addition to being fraudulent.
The devoted and outspoken Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay describes the
action as a crime and says that we, in fact, have a credibility problem with
Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier tell the people of this Province: Does he feel
that these two strong and very negative opinions, from two champions of
Labrador, reflect the reasons why he is unsuccessful in obtaining clawback
concessions, equalization concessions, transportation funding, and other issues
of major importance to the people of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Two thing of note in the question. The first is that we do acknowledge a
difference of opinion with the MP, Mr. O'Brien, and the Mayor of Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, at this point in time. We do understand one other thing,
though, Mr. Speaker. Those same two gentlemen fully support this government in
all of our efforts to have a better fiscal arrangement with the government in
Ottawa, and they fully support us on that despite a disagreement over this issue
at this point in time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. O'Brien may have changed his opinion since the last time
that the Premier spoke (inaudible). The Member of Parliament also said yesterday
that this government has shown the federal government that their promises mean
nothing, that their commitments mean nothing, and that they cannot be trusted
with a blank cheque. He said that they have broken the trust of the federal
government, but he also said, more importantly, they have broken the trust of
the people of Labrador and the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that Lawrence O'Brien,
Member of Parliament, advises Paul Martin and Jean Chrtien on Labrador issues,
would the Premier tell us how much damage he is doing to this Province because
the Member of Parliament simply does not trust him?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I can say this and inform the Opposition Leader and all Members of the
House of Assembly, I spoke with the Prime Minister yesterday in the morning and
he raises no concerns about a lack of trust or confidence with respect to the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Mr. O'Brien as the MP, our
members in Labrador, our Liberal members in Labrador and the members of this
caucus will gladly, on any one day, if there is a debate to be had with respect
to Mr. O'Brien. We do not intend to debate Mr. O'Brien. We understand he has
a difference of opinion on this issue. We accept that, for this point in time.
We will continue to work with him, but in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we will
gladly put our record of accomplishment in Labrador as provincial MHAs up
against Mr. O'Brien's and the federal government's accomplishments in
Labrador anytime.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: You pass along the message, Premier.
Mr. Speaker, the Member of Parliament for Labrador has also said that on two
separate occasions, both in person and by letter, he asked the Premier and his
ministers to submit a formal and a detailed proposal for highway funding and he
still does not have one to date. He says that this government is not cooperating
with the federal government and he has also said there is no wonder they are so
far in debt and had to steal from the Labrador Transportation Fund.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Would the Premier explain why his government has not even
bothered to prepare and present a proper proposal as ammunition for Mr. O'Brien
to take to his caucus and ministers, and your friend, the Prime Minister, when
this Province is strangling under its own deficits and its own debt?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure that the Opposition must be delighted that Mr. O'Brien said
something because they have not said anything.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: All we heard here for three days since the Budget are the
members opposite quoting Mr. O'Brien, because they refuse to say what their
stand is on Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway. They refuse to say what
they would have done differently other than take the money from the fund as
revenue so that we could keep a deficit down to manageable means and strike the
balance in the Budget, Mr. Speaker. Those are the issues that we are dealing
with.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to now conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Mr. O'Brien understands
quite fully that we are going through all of the appropriate channels. I
personally have written the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Manley, as to what
instructions he wants the government to follow, government-to-government. We do
not need to use Mr. O'Brien or anyone else as an emissary for the government.
He will be a supporter of ours in the initiatives -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to now conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - that are put forward when we get the directions and
instructions from the Deputy Prime Minister as to exactly how he wants to make a
detailed solution with respect to the infrastructure funding -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to take his seat.
PREMIER GRIMES: - and we will deal with it on a government-to-government
basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted. I am delighted that a Liberal has finally told it the way it
is, and I thank Mr. O'Brien.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the government fought
tooth and nail to prevent the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation
from tabling his slide presentation. The reason why government did not want it
tabled was because they embarrassed this Province by presenting it to the
federal government.
The Member of Parliament, Lawrence O'Brien, said that a request for nearly
a billion dollars required a concrete, a properly costed, a formal presentation
and not something which was amateurish and not formal and not professional.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary.
MR. WILLIAMS: I know what it takes to present a properly costed business
presentation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister of Finance for her comment and her
recognition (inaudible) ability.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier tell the people of this
Province how he expects the federal government to hand over nearly $1 billion to
this Province on the basis of a Mickey Mouse powerpoint presentation, which is
being laughed at by the federal government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure the people of Labrador, as well as the people on the Island portion
of the Province, are delighted to see the level of support that the Leader of
the Opposition is giving to our very serious attempts to have the federal
government engage in a meaningful discussion with respect to highway priorities
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition just described,
and contrary to what Mr. O'Brien described, Minister Collenette was quite
pleased to know that the number one priority for this government is the
completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. He understood that completely and
fully from the presentation that was given, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: He was also pleased to know that there are also concerns
with respect to highway construction and needs on the Island, as highlighted by
members like the Member for Baie Verte and so on, that we are also trying to
accomplish. We laid out the general nature of the needs of the Province over the
next ten years and indicated that we would like to hear from him, exactly when
he would like to sit down and negotiate the details of how we deal with $100
million for Phase III, first, and the other needs for the next ten years for the
Province, secondly.
So, unlike the description of it by the Leader of the Opposition, the federal
minister involved was pleased to receive the information, and we are anxious to
get involved with the detailed negotiation when they are ready.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how Mr. Collenette feels,
after the raid on the Labrador -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Do you have the guts to stand up and speak in the
Legislature, on the record, Eddie Joyce, because you haven't said anything
here yet.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: Don't have the guts to do it.
MR. FRENCH: That is right, you haven't.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Sitting in your seat yapping all the time. Stand up and
speak in the House, put yourself on the record.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in reference to this government's actions on this Budget,
independent people, quite independent people, like fellow Liberal MP, Lawrence O'Brien,
the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Peter O'Brien of the Canadian Federation
of Independent Business, have used several terms to describe the raid on
Labrador.
My question, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier is: What does he think the words
despicable, disgraceful - this is the question, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Pardon, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: This is the question.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Does he think the words:
despicable, disgraceful, highway robbery, broken trust, fraudulent, crime -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member now is getting into an area that is -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It is inflammatory, the words are inflammatory. It is going to cause, I
guess, problems and disorder in the House. This kind of language ought not to be
used in Parliament. I am asking the hon. member to be cautious with the kind of
language that he is using. I do not want to bring this House into disrepute. It
cannot reflect on members of this House or on this institution, and I ask the
hon. member to get to his question and to be more selective with the vocabulary
that he is using.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I could respectfully point out to the
Chair, these are not my words.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Honourable members cannot do that. They cannot - what we have referred to in
this House - use the back door to do what we cannot do through the front door.
The Chair is not going to tolerate this kind of language.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: What does the
Premier think of these characterizations which have been used by other people,
and also comments made - financial perspective, a business perspective - that
talk about the credibility problem that this government has with Ottawa, that
talk about a need to get a financial act together, that talk about the fact that
the Province has stumbled badly -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: - and the fact that the Province cannot be trusted with a
blank cheque?
My question for the Premier is: Premier, do you think that these
characterizations and these public comments by truly independent people are
having any further effect on the business reputation of Newfoundland and
Labrador in addition to the damage you have already done as a result of the FPI
fiasco?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the reference to one person who is independent, and the fact
that his name was used. I expect that means the Leader of the Opposition agrees
with his views, and that is Mr. O'Brien of the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business. He is nodding, which means he indicates, Mr. Speaker, that
he agrees with his views.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: The view, Mr. Speaker, of Mr. O'Brien, the most telling
one for Striking the Balance, is that he suggested that there was something
wrong with the Budget because the government should have rolled back the wage
increases for public sector (inaudible). That indicates quite clearly, the fact
that the Leader of the Opposition supports the views of Mr. O'Brien, that is
the real agenda of the Opposition; because they will not talk about it openly
and publically. Maybe he might like to stand up and talk about whether or not he
supports the views of people like -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: - Mr. O'Brien, and that is what they would do if they
were the government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
company or a consultant company out of Winnipeg to do a study on how people in
this Province feel about working, this Legislature and people in this Province
would be rightfully outraged.
My question is to the Deputy Premier. How can he justify, based on comments
made by his Parliamentary Secretary yesterday, that it is okay for this Province
to hire a cultural research company out of Winnipeg to study the attitudes of
how Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel about working?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, for all of the hon. gentleman's feigned
opposition, his feigned offence to what this government has done, let me just
say this to him. This government believes in research and development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: I know that the hon. gentleman believes in research, unlike his
leader who sits next to him.
Mr. Speaker, the kind of interview that the hon. gentleman gave to The
Telegram yesterday, just goes to show either one of two things: either his
lack of understanding of what it takes to do proper planning for this Province,
or his lack of understanding of what he has in his hands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Based on the comments by the Parliamentary Secretary, the minister or Deputy
Premier can try to spin and turn this issue any way he wants. The Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador has a statistical agency that can provide any and all
of the information; all you need to do is call.
The fact of the matter remains, Mr. Speaker, to the Deputy Premier: How can
you and your government, how can the Premier, the Deputy Premier - because this
issue was passed in Cabinet - justify spending $380,000 of taxpayers' money to
find out how people in Gaultois or the Goulds or Kilbride or Griquet or on the
South Coast or Northern Coast of Labrador, to find out how they feel about a
job? Here is how they feel: Create the opportunity and they will take the job!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, what a shallow understanding of what this piece of
research is all about.
Mr. Speaker, so that the hon. gentleman can take it home over Easter, if he
does not have all of what is in this contract and what is in this proposal, I
want him to take it over Easter and read it. I am going to table it for him so
he can take it and read it over Easter, as to what this project is about. What
this project really is about, I say to the hon. gentleman, is to study and
research as to how we can, in our efforts to improve the economy in this
Province -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: He is at it again.
- to study and research as to how we can foster innovation, how we can foster
entrepreneurship, how we can make the workplace a better place for our people in
Newfoundland and Labrador to work in. That is what it is about; I will table
that document for him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: What an unbelievable revelation here. The Deputy Premier
has stood in the House to say that the government has hired a research company
out of Winnipeg to see if their jobs and renewal strategy for growth is
happening. That is what he is saying, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The question is this: If that is the case, while he is
tabling the remainder of the contract could he also table how this company was
chosen? Were Newfoundland and Labrador companies given the opportunity to
participate? What made this company so special to study how the attitudes of
Newfoundlanders are towards work? What made this company so special to justify
how the government's own jobs and renewal strategy for growth is occurring?
What is it, minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to him -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: I sat down and I listened to my member when he asked his
constituent a question. I would like for my member to respect his constituent,
who happens to be the minister, and listen as well.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman, he has the thing backwards.
Unlike the Opposition, unlike his leader, we believe in research. We believe in
finding the best there is and I think in this case we found it. We believe in
finding the best there is so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can
reap the benefits of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stated
yesterday in this House of Assembly that he met with the federal Minister of
Finance to discuss the $100 million for research for Placentia & St. Mary's
in order to start negotiations with Inco.
Mr. Speaker, I will quote from Hansard: "...I also talked to Paul Martin
to see if he could come up with $100 million ..."
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member knows that the House has ruled that he cannot quote directly
from any document; not from Hansard, or any document.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is news to me. I thought we could quote
from Hansard.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, he said he met with the federal Minister of Finance to
discuss the $100 million for research for Placentia & St. Mary's in order
to start negotiations with Inco. To give the minister a chance to clear this
matter up, can the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tell this
House of Assembly when he met the federal Minister of Finance to discuss this
matter? Where he met? What were the details of that discussion, and what can he
produce to show that he actually did meet the minister to discuss this matter?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked the question
because when I was in Ottawa, any time I am in Ottawa, I take opportunity to
meet with a whole range of people in Ottawa. The people in the federal Cabinet
in Ottawa are good friends of mine, and one of my good friends in Ottawa is Paul
Martin. Paul Martin and I sat and discussed economic and social opportunities
for this Province for about an hour. I do it all the time I go to Ottawa. I have
met with numerous Cabinet ministers in the thirteen years that I have been
involved in politics.
In Newfoundland, I have met with numerous federal politicians in the last
thirteen years and I am always there to advance the cause of Newfoundland and
Labrador. I talked about the Trans- Labrador Highway and all kinds of other
initiatives for Newfoundland and Labrador. What is the problem with that? What
is the seriousness of going to Ottawa and calling upon your friends and saying,
I would like to talk about economic opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador?
That is why we were elected, to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and as long as I am the member for the District of Bellevue, I will go to Ottawa
and talk to my federal counterparts about economic and social and infrastructure
needs for Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, from that answer it should be noted that the
minister did not say when he met with him or where he met with him. In other
words, he did not meet with him, Mr. Speaker, to discuss this matter.
As the Opposition critic for Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. Speaker,
and along with government's so-called open, transparent and accountable
government policy, I requested on January 3, 2002, under the Freedom of
Information Act, information pertaining to the provincial roads program. I
received a letter back from the Deputy Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation stating that they wanted $236.25 for that information. Mr.
Minister, do you agree that your department should charge the Official
Opposition critic for the information that should be in the public domain and
required to carry out that position?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: I guess there are two questions. I will handle the first
one. My discussions and my meeting with my good friend Paul Martin occurred on
February 5, 2002, at 5:03 p.m. Ottawa time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BARRETT: At 5:03 p.m. Ottawa time and if he wants to know the
location, it was in -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. BARRETT: Do you want to ask another question where the location was?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to get to his answer.
MR. BARRETT: So you will not run out of questions, I will let you ask
where the meeting took place.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to get to his answer quickly.
MR. BARRETT: The second question was the hon. member said that he
requested some information from the department. All the information that he
requested was on the public record. What he wanted was the tenders and all the
items that were tendered for road work for the last couple of years. The House
of Assembly financed a research department in the Leader of the Opposition's
office, and I am sure that if he were to consult with his people in his office
upstairs that they would have been able to go into the computer and get all the
information.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we will be checking out the 5:03 p.m. Ottawa time, to make sure
that the minister is not misleading this House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. J. BYRNE: On March 1, 2002, I responded in writing agreeing to pay
for the requested information. His department now wants this charge for
information -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to now get to his question.
MR. J. BYRNE: - to be paid upfront before I get the information. Does the
Minister of Works, Services and Transportation really believe that it is right
and proper to charge his critic upfront for information required to do his job,
which is part of the democratic process?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Isn't this just delaying tactics and in effect, denying information to the
Official Opposition? Where is the openness and transparency of government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The issue with respect to a request under Freedom of Information, it is a
choice that the Opposition has to make. The instructions that are in this
government, which is the most open and accountable that the Province has ever
seen, is this -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Instructions are, if he needs information that is
available - they do not have to use the Freedom of Information Act. The Freedom
of Information Act, they would know, has a
section that says you have to pay for
the information if it is requested under that act. There is a charge
section in
the act. If they want the information for free, just ask for it. You do not have
to write a request under the Freedom of Information, just ask for the
information. But, if you write under the Freedom of Information, then you
trigger the act.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. There are
over 5,000 people in the Province with Alzheimer's, and about 1,500 of them
with mild to moderate (inaudible) would benefit from medication such as Aricept,
Exelon and Reminyl to the point that entry to nursing home care would be
significantly delayed; at a cost of $1,800 a year per patient compared to more
than $25,000 for nursing home care. If only 10 per cent of those patients could
benefit from these drugs the Province could save approximately $3.5 million a
year by improving their health and improving their lives, as well as saving the
Province money. Will the minister indicate to the House today that these drugs
will be included in the provincial drug formulary so they could be available to
Alzheimer's patients in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to make that commitment here
today, that we will include Aricept or similar class of drugs in the provincial
drug formulary.
As members would realize, the drug program is one that is highly
overextended. It costs us in the order of close to $80 million a year in order
to be able to fund drugs under this program. In doing so, we try to keep with
what is already on the formulary and obviously, to only add drugs that have
proven clinical, pharmaco-economic value. We review that, and have agreed to
review that, through the Atlantic drug review program.
At this point the drug program has not recommended this particular drug or
class of drugs. However, there is review that is continuing on this area.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; time for one
quick question.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That is one example of saving money and improving lives in our health care
system. I have here a national study showing that the current drug system with
12 per cent of Canadians with no drug coverage whatsoever leads to poor health,
increase of costs, additional hospital and doctor visits, as well as increased
hospitalization.
Will this Province support a national pharmacare plan which studies have
shown the overall cost would be less than what is now being spent on drugs in
this country and improve people's lives? Will this government support such a
national initiative, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House on many occasions and
spoken -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the House on many occasions of
our commitment to try and be able to provide, as best we can, for the drug needs
for people in this Province who have prescription drug requirements. We do not
have the resources to have a universal drug program. This is an issue for health
departments right across the country. It is something that we recognize as being
a major cost of health care in the Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to quickly conclude her answer.
MS BETTNEY: - and we are taking every measure that we possibly can to try
and make the most efficient use of the money that we can put to our provincial
drug formulary, but it is not universal at this point and we simply do not have
the resources for that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the first Annual Report of the
Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation in accordance with
section 13(3) of
the Municipal Financing Corporation Act.
Mr. Speaker, the NMFC plays a very important role in financing municipal
capital projects in our Province. The Corporation borrows the necessary funds in
the Canadian capital markets and re-lends these funds to our municipalities for
such projects as water and sewer, paving, waste management, as well as
recreation, and life safety requirements.
The Corporation's borrowings are guaranteed by government, Mr. Speaker, but
there has never been a requirement for our Province to make a payment under its
guarantee. A significant portion of the Corporation's loans to municipalities
is paid by government under various cost-sharing arrangements, and in recent
years government has also provided funding to assist with the restructuring of
municipal debt.
To date, $35 million has been allocated to the debt relief fund maintained by
NMFC for this purpose. Mr. Speaker, NMFC has carried out a very important public
policy function on behalf of government and I would like to acknowledge the
efforts put forth by staff, the corporation's board, as well as my colleagues
at the Department of Finance, Justice, and Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 55(3) of the Financial
Administration Act, I wish to table the following information with respect to
guaranteed loans paid out by the Province since the last report to the House of
Assembly.
Further, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 49(2) of the Financial
Administration Act, I wish to table the list of temporary loans raised under
section 48 of the act, since the last report to this hon. House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to table the annual report of the Labour Relations Board
for the calender year 2001. This report outlines the activities of the Labour
Relations Board in 2001 with respect to case loads, hearings and various matters
which come under the jurisdiction of the board.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the report of the Public
Tender Act exemptions for December, January and February.
Notices of Motion
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if some time throughout the day, or
even when the House gets back after Easter, just if I could, seek clarification.
I want to be very clear that I am not challenging the Speaker, his rulings, or
anything.
Today, the Member for Cape St. Francis, in Question Period, was quoting from
Hansard. We were of the understanding, based upon Beauchesne , page 152,
497 that that was allowable. I will just quote it. I am just seeking
clarification from the Chair. It is under the
section Documents Cited during
Rules of Debate, it says: "497. A Member may quote from Hansard, but not
from the unedited preliminary version known as the "blues"." That
is: Debates , September 24, 1985, p. 6893.
I am just asking the Chair that at some point - not necessarily immediately,
but certainly when we get back over the Easter break, if he could take the
matter under advisement to give some direction, I guess, to all members in terms
of our own debates. When we are citing documents in the House, is Hansard an
acceptable document that we can cite, because if it is not we will not plan to
do it in the future?
MR. SPEAKER: To the point that the hon. member has raised, our own
Standing Orders, of course, are to be guiding the parliamentary authorities that
we follow, or the rules that we follow. If it is not covered in our own Standing
Orders we use the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and then, of course,
other parliamentary authorities beyond that.
I think the member should recall that some time ago we had the same point of
order raised. I think the ruling at that time, based on our own Standing Orders,
was that quoting from any document, including Hansard, was not acceptable in the
House.
I will certainly review that ruling, but I believe that was the ruling at the
time because our Standing Orders are the ones that guide us in making decisions
in the House. If an incident or a point raised is not covered by own Standing
Orders we use the House of Commons, and then we use parliamentary authorities
after that.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to respond to a question which was raised by the Leader of the
Opposition yesterday, in Question Period, with regard to the culture research
project which we heard referenced here in debate this afternoon. The question
was with regard to the involvement of the Department of Human Resources and
Employment. In fact, in his remarks, the Opposition House Leader had in fact
alluded and stated that the department was actually managing the project.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, again, I am just trying to set the matter
straight. The hon. member will have ample opportunity to rise and respond, as I
am sure he will.
The situation is, I have gone back and checked out, certainly yesterday when
the question was raised I had no knowledge of the program, or at least the
involvement by my own department. Upon check, the only reference that I can find
is in fact an arrangement that was made between the Deputy Minister of Industry,
Trade and Rural Renewal, at that time, and the deputy from my department whereby
an arrangement was made in the absence of the deputy from Industry, Trade and
Rural Development, when he was going to be away on holidays. He had assigned the
signing authority to the deputy from my department, in fact, that operated only
during the absence of the deputy while he was on holidays. There was one
transaction which happened through that period of time. When he returned, that
was it.
There was no involvement by my department, Mr. Speaker, but I do say that I
would have been delighted to be involved because we have heard the hon. minister
say here today that this is a good initiative on part of the people of the
Province, it is something that we need to do, and I am sure the people of the
Province recognize that we are on the right track in trying to do what is in
their best interest.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.
Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and
Employment had just said that this is only a one-time thing because the deputy
minister from the Deputy Premier's office was on holidays.
In the documents that I have, it does not say that, and I want to quote it
for clarification and set the record straight. This is a letter from the Deputy
Minister, Mr. John Scott, to your Deputy Minister, Miss Vivian Randell, and it
says: The initiative will be managed by the Department of Human Resources and
Employment in its capacity as lead department for the Strategic Social Plan. I
am delegating my signing authority relating to its implementation (inaudible) to
Miss Vivian Randell, Deputy Minister of Human Resources. The delegation is
effective immediately and will continue until the end of the initiative or the
end of the fiscal year.
So, my questions are based upon correspondence that went from that department
to yours, not any conjecture, but where it actually said that your department
would administer it from this day forward until the end of the initiative or
until the end of the fiscal year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
It being Wednesday, and 3:00 p.m., we are now at private member's
resolution.
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: By leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have leave to
table some more reports.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is asking for leave to table a report. Is it agreed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want today to table a
summary of the special warrants for 2001-2002, in a
very timely manner, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A special warrant for $17 million to provide additional funds for health care
facilities equipment and renovations. Special warrants to provide additional
funds for occupational reclassifications. A special warrant of $6.3 million to
provide additional funds for our income support and our senior citizens' drug
subsidization programs. Under education, a special warrant of $10 million to
provide additional funds for teachers' salaries, and also for the Newfoundland
and Labrador Education Investment Corporation, the fund that builds and does
maintenance and renovations to our schools in the Province. Mr. Speaker, under
the Department of Justice, a special warrant for $411 million to provide
additional funds for occupational reclassifications. A special warrant of $1.9
million to provide additional funds for payment of salary increases and
retroactive pay to provincial court judges, and a special warrant of $720,000 to
provide additional funds, Mr. Speaker, for the purchase of digital court
recording equipment.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is customary under the
act and legislation of this House, the Financial Administration Act, that
warrants should not be tabled here if they are issued during the period the
House is sitting. They should come as a Supplementary Supply Bill or be included
in the Budget for 2002-2003. It is contrary to the act, and it is incumbent upon
the minister, if the date on this is when this House is in session, it is
contrary to the act and we should see a Supply Bill to be debated here if it is
in this Budget or presented for approval in the 2002-2003 Budget.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to debate a private member's motion that I put
forward. I am going to read the motion so that people are clear:
WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada commits the Parliament and Government of
Canada to make equalization payments to provinces to ensure Canadians have
access to reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonably
comparable levels of taxation; and
WHEREAS the current equalization program does not meet this constitutional
requirement and there is evidence that we are moving further away from
satisfying this commitment; and
WHEREAS the treatment of non-renewable resource revenues in the present
equalization system is unfair;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the federal
government to replace the current equalization formula with a fairer system that
re-establishes the fundamental principles on which this program is based; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House go on record of supporting the
efforts of our Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the
Premier of Nova Scotia, in campaigning for fairness as it relates to offshore
resource royalties.
Madam Speaker, that is the motion that I put forward to hon. members today,
and it is a motion of tremendous significance and of importance that it be
raised and its awareness be raised at this particular time in our history in
Newfoundland and Labrador especially.
We have to encourage people to become involved in this cause. One way,
certainly, to do that is to have it debated in this House, have it recorded, and
all of us, as elected members, have the opportunity to express our views on this
important issue.
Equalization is there to assist the equalization receiving provinces to
achieve a greater degree of fiscal self-reliance so that those provinces can
deliver an appropriate level of services to the people they serve.
Madam Speaker, equalization payments are subject to several things. One of
them is ceiling and floor provisions. This is to provide protection to
individual provinces, year over year, so that there are not reductions within
their payments. The program is an important source of revenue for all the seven
provinces that are now receiving those payments. Those provinces are:
Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.
Madam Speaker, equalization and the natural resources is probably one of the
areas that has been causing the greatest contention for us in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Non-renewable natural resource revenues have posed numerous
difficulties in the operation of the equalization formula. The greatest
difficulty is created by the volatility provincial non-renewable resource
earnings. I say that because this is obviously the situation that we find
ourselves in, as a government, and as a Province, as we deal with some of the
non-renewable resource developments that are before us today.
There are some generic solutions that have been applied to the formula by the
Atlantic Accord on offshore revenues and royalties. We did get a solution, I
guess, then, or an Accord, in which we looked at a percentage of the revenues
that would be left to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Nova Scotia also has a similar arrangement on its offshore revenues, Quebec
on its asbestos, and Saskatchewan on potash. There are a number of agreements
that have been put in place by the federal government over the years to deal
with equalization, and, having done so, certainly realizing the tremendous
importance it is to Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to hold on to those
revenues that are generated.
Madam Speaker, equalization impacts all areas of government within this
Province. It is a new approach. If not found, we will remain trapped in what
some people would call a cycle of dependency and never be able to get ahead.
Because, as the formula is today, any revenues that we generate, as a Province,
are claw backed dollar for dollar on equalization, which leaves our Province
with very little capital to be able to invest in other areas of governance, and
in other areas of infrastructure, programs, service delivery, or whatever the
case may be.
We have to find a new approach. We are at a time in our history where we are
being forced to look at another alternative, at a new way, a different way in
which we can generate revenues, provide more benefits.
Equalization was one of the founding principles of the Canadian
Confederation. Its purpose was to ensure that no matter what province you lived
in across this country, from east to west, that you would have a right to have
similar services and opportunities provided to the people of this country. This
principle of equalization is placed in the Constitution of the country, which
gives it the highest priority in terms of reflecting what the need is from
province to province.
When the Province is strong, Mr. Speaker, Canada is strong as a nation. When
we do well in Newfoundland and Labrador, the federal government does even
better. Much better, I might add. We have today, in our Province, a number of
non-renewable resources in which large sums of money are being paid out to the
federal government in taxes or royalties, or whatever phrase you would like to
use to certainly distinguish it. On Hibernia alone, there is over $21 billion in
oil reserves with the current system of equalization. This Province could only
see 10 per cent of that money entering the provincial Treasury.
Under the current clawback system, Newfoundland and Labrador retained just
$29 million of $98 million of revenues in 2001, and stands to retain only $54
million of $180 million in revenues in 2002. That is just one example, Madam
Speaker, of what we are dealing with as a provincial government and as a
Province, people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador.
When you can generate $100 million in revenue, and only be able to turn in
$29 million or $30 million of that revenue to the provincial Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, I do not think I need to indicate any further the
kind of problems that can cause when you have such high demands and such
tremendous need out there across Labrador.
The same thing is happening with iron ore in Labrador West. The same thing is
happening with other oil and gas developments within our Province, and now, Mr.
Speaker, we are, in Newfoundland and Labrador, at a time in our history where we
are looking at developing more non-renewable resources than we have had in the
past. We are looking at Voisey's Bay. We are looking at the Lower Churchill.
We are looking at future oil and gas developments. All of these projects are
non-renewable resources. All of these projects could provide to the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador, finances, investments, and opportunities that they do
not have today. But, we can only do that if we have the co-operation of the
understand, and feel what it is that we feel in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This is our opportunity, Madam Speaker, to make real progress. This is our
opportunity to generate our own revenues for our own people to make tremendous
progress to move forward to do things in this Province that we could not do in
previous years.
willing to co-operate, if they are willing to work with the Provinces that are
affected, like Newfoundland and Labrador, to create a new format, a new way, a
different way, a way that allows us to be able to see some of the revenues that
are generated from our own resources invested for our own people and for our own
benefits.
Madam Speaker, this is not a new issue for Newfoundland and Labrador, but it
is certainly an issue where we have reached a point in our history where we have
to certainly stand up, be counted, and launch a very serious campaign to have
equalization changed.
As I have said already, every other service, every other program, every other
piece of infrastructure that is in this Province, is affected by how
equalization is dealt with. We started that. Our Premier, when he told office,
launched a major campaign. He presented our case to the federal government. He
has presented it to all the other premiers and to the Canadian public. He did
that through a number of forums. He provided a position paper to the Senate in
Ottawa, on how we would like to see this particular issue handled, and where we
would like to see our Province and the federal government move with it.
Madam Speaker, the Senate Committee released its report on equalization just
a few days ago, and I was really pleased with some of the recommendations that I
saw in their report. Pleased on two accounts. One, that finally there is a
realization in Ottawa that this is a problem, and that it needs to be dealt
with, first of all. Secondly, there is an understanding of how it needs to be
dealt with, which is very important; because you just cannot tinker with
equalization without actually being able to fix the problem so that provinces
benefit. Every single time you change one particular aspect of the equalization
formula, it affects payments in the provinces.
I was pleased with the report of the Senate Committee and I know that we, as
a Province and as a government, has a significant role in that process. Our
Premier was in Ottawa; he presented to the Senate Committee. He outlined where
we would like to go with this, as a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He
made suggestions to them on how it could be changed.
I was pleased when I saw the recommendations, because the recommendations of
the Senate report certainly reflect where it is that we want to go as a
provincial government, and it is certainly supportive of the campaign that has
been ongoing in Nova Scotia and in the other Atlantic Provinces.
Madam Speaker, some of the recommendations in the report I want to outline.
One, removing the ceiling on equalization payments, and maintaining the floor
provisions in the equalization program; but restoring to a ten province
standard, which is what we have been asking for. This is one of the key pieces
to being able to develop an equalization program that is going to provide fair
returns on non-renewable resources or revenues for the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Another recommendation: provisions to protect non-renewable resource revenues
from clawbacks and an undertaking and evolution of the equalization provisions
of the Atlantic Accord to determine if they have met the intent for which they
were designed. These particular recommendations have a combination effect in
terms of where we want to go. We need to ensure that any new developments that
we have in Newfoundland and Labrador will provide significant revenues to our
government and to the people of the Province. For example, when you look at
Voisey's Bay - and I will just take some estimations because I do not have
firm figures in front of me. Some people would say that over the twenty years of
developing of the Voisey's Bay project that we could see something like $4
billion in revenues accrued to the federal government.
You would think, Madam Speaker, by the sound of my voice I have said it all
but I can tell you, I do not have it all said yet. Bear with me for another few
minutes.
A very serious note, Madam Speaker, very serious this is because the whole
future of this Province is contingent on what happens with equalization. This I
can assure you, the amount of progress that we make will be measured by how we
reform or re-devise a new equalization program. Take Voisey's Bay for example,
economists will say that over the life of the project, twenty years of the
project, over $4 billion in revenues will be accrued to the federal government
in royalties and taxes and so on - benefits, revenues, accrued to the federal
government. That is a very large sum of money and a sum of money that if it were
accruing to the provincial government, would have significant impacts upon the
economy of this Province.
MADAM SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that her time is up.
MS JONES: May I have leave to clue up my comments?
MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.
MS JONES: We will make sure the hon. members across the way are
accommodated in this debate; let there be no fear in that.
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the amount of royalties that accrue to the
federal government as a result of equalization from our non-renewable resources
is significantly higher, much higher, tremendously higher, than what accrues to
us as a Province. This is where we have some significant problems and we want to
ensure that we make changes. We can stand in this House each and every day and
talk about roads that need to be upgraded, that need to be paved; talk about
infrastructure, like water and sewer. Even in my own district, water and sewer
is needed in almost every community categorically from one end to the other end.
But, it is these pieces of infrastructure that we would then be able to afford,
without question, be able to afford if we were deriving more investments from
our non-renewable resources, more revenues from our non-renewable resources.
We have a responsibility, Madam Speaker, we are at a period in our history
today where we have to make significant changes if we are to make significant
progress. I can honestly tell you that this government is about making progress.
It is about serving the needs of people in our Province, the infrastructure
needs of our people, the service needs of our people and we can only do that
when we have control and have the revenues that are to be derived from the
resources that we develop. We have to develop for ourselves, Madam Speaker, and
we can only do that with the cooperation of our federal counterparts.
I hope that all members in the House today will support the resolution that
has been put forward. I am going to conclude my comments now. I will have a few
remarks at the end. I encourage all members to take
part in this debate today. I
think it is an important piece for the progress of our Province and I will
certainly look forward to the comments from other members.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I, too, have some comments that I want to make, in particular, to this
resolution here. I guess one of the fundamental principles or basis upon which
we get equalization is in
article 36(2) of the 1982 Constituent Act. I will just
quote the Constituent Act, it says: "Parliament and the government of
Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure
that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably
comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of
taxation."
Madam Speaker, I advocate that we are breaking the Constituent of our country
because our Province is now in a position where we are not able to provide
reasonably comparable levels of service under reasonably comparable levels of
taxation with other provinces across this country. Six times over this past year
I have done news releases, I might add, Madam Speaker, on this topic. I have
indicated in one - on May 25, for example, I indicated that I am convinced that
Ottawa is not living up to its constitutional obligation to ensure that
Newfoundland and Labrador's revenues are comparable to that of other provinces
in terms of being able to provide a level of services.
There are at least thirty-three different provincial revenue sources of
income used in calculating this equalization formula. That compares to fiscal
capacities of individual provinces to a national standard. Now, some of the
areas that are included here, in at least thirty-three areas - for example,
personal income tax revenue. We look at our business income revenue, capital tax
revenues. We have general and miscellaneous taxes; tobacco taxes; gasoline;
diesel fuel; non-commercial, another category; commercial vehicle licenses,
another category; and it goes on and on. There are a lot of categories that deal
with - like natural resources, for example. There is a new oil revenue category,
an old oil revenue category, heavy oil revenues, mined oil revenues, and
domestically sold natural gas revenues. So, you can see how many are tied into
gas. We have exported natural gas revenues as another category. We have other
oil and gas revenues in another category. Mineral resources from asbestos -
because this is a national thing now and not every province would have access to
all these resources and revenues, but some do. Mineral resources under coal,
other mineral resources, water power rentals - there are a whole variety of
taxes, payroll taxes, you name it. Lottery revenue is another one. They are just
some of the thirty-three areas that are equated into this particular standard.
Now, the national standard against which the fiscal capacity of each province
is currently determined, it is the average per capita, basically, revenue
generating capacity of five provinces. These provinces are Ontario, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Quebec. That is commonly referred to as the
FPS, or five-province standard. Now, this five-province standard has created, I
might add, some serious problems. For example, the entitlements that were there
under the ten-province standard, when we went to the five-province standard, I
understand it was only 92 per cent of that amount. I am being told now, and it
is my understanding, that under the current five-province standard that we are
only equalized up to 80 per cent of that figure, which is not full equalization
under our equalization.
Why is that the case? Well, why do we have a five-province standard? Alberta
initially was removed from that in the beginning because Alberta's resources
seemed to weigh to one end of the scale, and to sort of balance that they
dropped, basically, the four Atlantic Provinces from the other end of the
continuum that did not have the same fiscal capacity, and they took the
remaining five provinces. Now, that is no longer relevant today, and it has cost
us money because the ten-province standard would be more applicable today.
Now, Madam Speaker, there is another problem too, another big problem with
equalization, a very major problem, and that is the cap on equalization. Now,
that cap on equalization has been there for twenty years and it has caused a
is not going to put any more money, basically, into the equalization pot, and
everybody has to share it. So, as the disparity becomes greater between us and
other parts of the country - and that is happening in numerous areas - when we
look at comparing economies and their capacities, there is no way to compensate
for that growth and difference in disparity, because there is a cap. In
2000-2001, it was lifted for one year. In the year it was lifted, our Province
got $38 million extra, but the legislation removed it for one year, which meant:
Just what would we have received over the last twenty years? If it was $38
million for that year, I know it would vary with each year, it just gives you an
indication of how many millions - it is in the hundreds of millions, not in the
tens of millions - in effect, we have lost because of a cap on equalization.
You might wonder, why do we have a cap on equalization? Well, I made
reference back in my news release just last May on this same topic, and one of
the points I made in that release with reference to the cap, I said that
changing the ceiling or the cap on equalization does not need provincial
consent. It went on without provincial consent. It was lifted in 2000-2001
without provincial consent, I might add. It was instituted unilaterally by the
federal government. It was revoked, legislation, unilaterally, and it was put
back on, basically, again the following year.
If they have the power - we do not have to wait until 2004 to make changes to
the equalization formula. That is wrong. The federal government, Paul Martin and
the Prime Minister of Canada are telling us that is not correct. In fact, not
only do we not have to wait for 2004; we do not have to wait at all. The federal
government can lift that cap. It did it the year before last with an election
coming on. With an election coming up, it lifted the cap. It put it back on
again after the election. That is not a very honourable thing to do, and the $38
million we got, we would not have gotten. What about the other nineteen years
when we faced the cap, what would we have received in that period of time?
Now, there are a variety of concerns. One of the big concerns of mine, and I
spent some time this morning to sit down and do a little bit of research. I went
back to previous Budgets and revised figures I am taking from the government's
own documents. One of the big areas of concern, the Canada Health and Social
Transfer. This government, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,
supported changing the equalization formula, or changed supporting the change in
transfers to this Province, I might add - not equalization - the transfers to
this Province for health, post-secondary education and social services by
need basis. They went along with that, and that was wrong. Here is the impact. I
will just tell you. I researched figures right back to 1992 this morning, from
Budget documents that I have. I have kept them since I came in, and I went back
to that point when I came to this House.
In 1994-1995, for example, we got $441 million in the programs that preceded
the Canada Health and Social Transfer. They were called Established Program
Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan or CAP. Now, I am going to take the
last year in which we converted. Now $441 million in 1994-1995; the year after
1995-1996, it was $427 million. We got a bit less. So, after that year,
1995-1996, when we changed it with the consent of this Province without a
ripple, I might add, on the waves of discontent in this Province, the government
went along with it, what did we get the next year? We got $342.5 million, a loss
of $84.5 million. In 1997-1998 we got only $280 million, a loss of $133 million.
In 1998-1999, $275 million, a loss of $152 million. In 1999-2000, $290 million,
a loss of $137 million. That is when the fuss got created. They were trying to
put some money back in the pot then; they cut so deep and so on, it had such a
devastating effect on health care, post-secondary education in our Province. The
next year, 2000-2001, $339 million. That is still $88 million less than we got
in 1995-1996. In 2001-2002, $331 million, $96 million less, and this year's
Budget we are projecting $341 million, and that would be a loss of $86 million.
You might say, what effect does all of those figures have, just in the last
seven years? In seven years, our Province is going to receive $776.5 million
less, over the seven years, than we were getting under the old plan before they
went to per capita. Divide that by seven; we are looking at $110 million a year.
MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: We have not gone back to the per capita, I might tell the
Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.
In 1994-1995, leading up to 1995-1996, the government, of which you are a
member, did not create a ripple. They went along with changing the federal
equalization formula. If you can, show me something in print that you did to
oppose it. We have raised it very strongly. I raised it at the time, as Leader
of the Opposition, and prior to that as Health critic, of how devastating it is
to the health care of our Province. They did not do anything about it, I might
add. They did not rectify that situation and it has cost us over $750 million
dollars in seven years, and I am not looking at accumulative effect; I am just
looking at each year, the amount we lose every single year. Add it up. I am not
doing the double counting that they do accumulatively, that government often
does. For example, in year one, if we lost $84.5 million; in year two, if we
lost $133 million, then there is an accumulative affect there, but what we lost
was over $750 million dollars. Can you imagine what we could do today in this
Province? Just imagine, with $750 million, what we could do.
That has damaged us, and that is an area they fail to balance. How can
Newfoundland and Labrador provide the same level of health care as Saskatchewan,
Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, or any province of this country, with our geography
and our population. I have been saying for some time, there has to be a certain
base established that levels the playing field, and then you can go per capita.
But you have to level the playing fields of geography and the cost to get these
services out to these areas. Something has to be done about that. I think we
have to move to correct that.
Now, we talked about - I know I only have about fifteen minutes. I know I
will get a couple of extra minutes, they indicated, to give me a little bit of
time, but -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I know. I am just saying I did give the initial one there,
I think, something like eighteen or twenty minutes initially when they only had
fifteen, and that person gets to speak again and I do not. We are only going to
put one other speaker up on this, I think, so if you could just bear with me. I
will only be a couple of minutes or so more.
The second part of that resolution, I want to bring to your attention. I
would like to have a comment on that. I am sure the member who moved that might
certainly tune in and, I am sure, could agree with me. The first part of that is
fairly clear, basically, that this House call upon the federal government to
replace the current fund with a fairer system that re-establishes fundamental
principles. That is probably very general, but we do not have a point with that.
The second point I would like to have a little more clarification because the
second BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED states: "that this Honourable House go on
record of supporting the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and Premier of
Nova Scotia in campaigning for fairness as it relates to offshore resource
royalties."
One point I am asking is: What is fairness? Has this government put forth a
plan, a certain principle, or a certain aspect that they consider fair? We have
not seen what you forth. How do we know what you are looking for? If we know
what you are looking for we can tell you if it is fair and support it.
I have a suggested amendment to replace that, that is very positive and I
hope will get support. I will just read a replacement for that, that could be
specific and I am sure hon. members of this House can support. I am going to
move an amendment to replace the second AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED with the
following: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Honourable House go on record of
supporting - they are the same words - the position that all non-renewable
resources be exempt from federal clawback under the equalization formula. I
think that is something specific that we can say. Why should they be clawing
back on non-renewable resources? I think this is something that is positive, it
is specific. No offence to the resolution but, how do we support what is
fairness? What is the government's definition of fairness, and what have they
presented? If we see something in front of us that says here is what we consider
fairness and here is what we are looking for, we could turn around and say: Yes,
we will support that.
At least the amendment I am moving is specific. It says, basically, let's
stop this clawback on non-renewable resources on equalization and let us allow
our economy of this Province to keep the revenues to grow. Don't penalize us
for showing growth, don't penalize us for showing promise and negotiating
agreements, don't penalize us because we want to become equal partners in this
country. I can tell you, we are not equal partners in this country right now
because we are not getting a fair opportunity to deliver educational programs,
health care programs and other programs. We are at a competitive disadvantage
The member who proposed it from Labrador - we need extra revenues. The
Trans-Labrador Highway is a fantastic concept. The faster it gets a reality in
this Province, I can tell you, the better. The faster we can get control of our
resources to be able to do the things we need - the Trans-Labrador Highway, and
I think across the Straits also, that was only a vision in Prince Edward Island;
a fixed link. It might be a vision but it can become a reality because what
better way for people in this Province - they could get on a road, drive the
Northern Peninsula, go across the Straits and right through Labrador into
Quebec. I cannot wait, to be honest with you, for an opportunity to be able to
travel across this Province and right on through into Labrador. Open up a whole
new area for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!
The member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: About thirty seconds to wrap up?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. SULLIVAN: I think it is an excellent opportunity and I think the way
to do it, Mr. Speaker, is to put pressure on the federal government to
accomplish this.
I will just table this here, give the Chair a copy of this amendment, and
hopefully it will get the support of everybody here in this House so we can deal
with this fairly expeditiously here today. I think, certainly, it has the
support of this side of the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to speak for a few moments
today in support of the motion brought forward by my hon. colleague the Member
for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
It is a very important motion, Mr. Speaker, and we have to debate and raise
awareness and strengthen our resolve in relation to this particular issue. The
issue before us today, Mr. Speaker, is probably the most important issue facing
this Province. It is not something that we can change through a vote in this
House of Assembly, therefore our role is to put pressure on the federal
government to make change. This issue, Mr. Speaker, is the most important issue
in this Province today because it impacts on all aspects of government in this
Province. The challenge is to make it a major issue for all Canadians.
Canada is a country that was established and built on principles that all
citizens, no matter which province they live in, should have a right to similar
services and opportunities. In fact, as the motion notes, this principle is
placed right in the Constitution of this country. It is a part of what we stand
for as a nation. It is a part of what makes Canada the best country in the world
today. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is a part of the fabric of this country, but
it is not yet a reality. The fact is, that successive federal governments have
not kept this constitutional commitment. In fact, we are slipping further away
from this objective, one of our founding principles. It is clear, Mr. Speaker,
that the current system is not working for Newfoundland and Labrador.
As a Province, the present system traps us in a situation where we cannot get
ahead. Each year we work to provide services for the people of this Province.
The Opposition makes demands on us for more and more spending. Many legitimate
needs have to be balanced as government tries to live within the financial
realities that we face. This year we have struck a balance, and the Minister of
Finance has certainly done a really good job with the resources that are
available to us. But, Mr. Speaker, this does not lessen the importance of this
issue. We have to find a way to deal with this problem, with the current system,
if we are ever going to realize our full potential as a province within the
Canadian Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, it should be clear to all Canadians that we do not want to be
trapped in a position of dependency. The current situation is unacceptable to us
as a Province. We want a new approach which allows us to be contributors to the
rest of Canada. We have much potential in this Province and we should not be
perpetually looking to the federal government for a major portion of our
revenue. Mr. Speaker, we have the potential here to be a stronger Province. We
have the potential to help make Canada an even stronger nation. It is time for
us, as a country, to reestablish the basic principles that this country was
founded on.
Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, this issue is vital to our future.
We are entering a period of resource development in this Province which may be
the best chance we have had in a long time to change our position in relation to
the rest of Canada. This will be our chance, Mr. Speaker, to assert ourselves
and realize our potential to break what some people have called the cycle of
dependency. We will not break that cycle of dependency unless there are changes
at the federal level, unless there is a new approach.
Mr. Speaker, the way things are now, most of the benefits from new resource
development goes to the federal government rather than to this Province. Some
have even said that there is no incentive to go ahead with development because
the benefits for this Province are so small. This is why the system has to be
changed, Mr. Speaker.
establish a Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada.
I think this Commission and the issue of equalization are very closely linked.
Although the Royal Commission will have a broad mandate, I think the issue of
equalization must be dealt with by this Commission.
Also, Mr. Speaker, although the terms of reference have not yet been
announced, it has been stated that the Commission's mandate will be to involve
the people of the Province in seeking a broad consensus to position ourselves in
the global community, to renew our relationship within Canada, to complete a
critical analysis of our strengths and weaknesses, and to provide direction for
the decade to come.
The Royal Commission, Mr. Speaker, will address, among other things, who we
were when we joined Canada in 1949; how we have changed over the past five
decades; our relations with other governments; our contribution as a society,
and where we see ourselves in the future. The Commission will have a broad
mandate to undertake necessary research and conduct public consultations in this
Province.
Mr. Speaker, I also sincerely believe that this Royal Commission would have
the effect of placing the issues of this Province before the rest of Canada in a
way that has never been done before. We have to place equalization on the
national agenda. We have to make our issues, issues for all Canadians.
I am hopefully that this Royal Commission will go along way in not only
causing us to re-examine how we see ourselves, but also, Mr. Speaker, also
require others to re-examine how they see us. I am hopefully this Commission
will enable us to make a stronger case on policy issues such as equalization.
Mr. Speaker, as we enter this debate and this struggle to get a better
arrangement on equalization, we should not be naive about the challenges which
are before us. We should be aware of the mindset which is present in the rest of
Canada and has to be dealt with. We are dealing with a mindset which allowed the
former Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario to equate equalization to
welfare. We are up against members of the national press who do not understand
this Province and view everything from a Canadian perspective. So, there are
many challenges ahead of us on this issue. We have to change minds and we have
to change the way people see us.
Mr. Speaker, the challenges ahead are daunting but there is some evidence
that when we are persistent and make our case, we can change people's minds.
This is evident in the recently released report of the Senate Committee on
National Finance. The Premier made a presentation to this Committee last
October. He made a strong case that the Province should be the principal
beneficiary of its offshore resource revenues as committed to under the Atlantic
Accord. The recommendations in the report which came out last week recognize
that there are flaws in the current equalization program that need to be fixed.
Several of the recommendations support things the Province has been calling for.
This is certainly an encouraging sign. It is a sign that we have made progress
on this issue, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the member.
MS M. HODDER: It is okay, Mr. Speaker, I am about to conclude.
I will say, in conclusion, that this is a very important motion. It is a part
of this government's overall effort to bring about change in this area, and
this motion deserves the support of all members in this hon. House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding, the Chair has considered the amendment as
put forward by the Member for Ferryland, and we find the amendment to be in
order.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to rise on this important debate here in the House of
Assembly on the motion by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in
relation to the equalization payment system. We have, as part of the
Constitution of Canada, a provision that there shall be an equalization formula
in place, an equalization program to balance out the interests of the various
provinces and to provide, in some measure, for provincial equity in this
country. The idea is very clear, that no citizen of Canada should have a lesser
level of services because of the place in Canada where they live, and the tax
burden on people across this country should be comparable. That is clearly not
the case, Mr. Speaker. It is clearly not the case in this Province where we have
consistently suffered from the necessity of the higher taxes, or the highest tax
rate in Canada some say, the highest tax rate for income tax, a higher level of
taxation for other items, with some exceptions, and I will get to them in a
moment. Exceptions in the area of corporate taxation, in the area of mineral
taxation, in the area of royalties, were very low, comparatively speaking, but
in the area of personal income tax and other burdens on individuals we are on
the high end.
The equalization formula is supposed to even things out, Mr. Speaker. Well,
there are a number of very serious problems with that formula, as has been
brought to the attention of the public in this Province a number of times and
also nationally by people from this Province, including myself. Perhaps the best
way to explain, Mr. Speaker, the effects of the equalization program is to look
at the percentage; and the importance of that program is to look at the
percentage of the equalization monies as a percentage of provincial own source
revenues.
You will see, Mr. Speaker, from a table included in the recent Senate report
on equalization, that Newfoundland and Labrador is the Province whose
equalization contributions are the highest as a percentage of its own source
revenue. In Newfoundland and Labrador, up until 1997-1998, the last year
included in this report, the equalization payments were 49 per cent of the
Province's own source revenues. That compares with numbers for other provinces
that are quite low by comparison.
The equalization formula, Mr. Speaker, resulted in a contribution to this
Province of great significance as a result of the way that it has operated here
in Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to recognize its importance. In fact, it
is vital to this Province that that formula work, and work effectively, to
ensure that we do have the ability to provide for our own citizens in terms of
programs and make sure that because you live in Newfoundland and Labrador, you
do not miss out.
Mr. Speaker, now with Newfoundland and Labrador at around 49 per cent, we see
other provinces such as Saskatchewan, which sometimes is referred to as a
have-not province because they are on the lower end of some of the indicators,
but they receive, as a percentage of own source revenue, about 3.5 per cent in
the latest year for which it was reported. They received 3.5 per cent; the
Province of Quebec about 10 per cent; Nova Scotia 37 per cent; Prince Edward
Island 39 per cent; and Newfoundland 49 per cent. It is more important to this
Province than any other province in the country, that we have an equalization
formula that works, and works well for Newfoundland and Labrador.
One of the difficulties with the formula is that there was an upper, and
there still is, a cap or a ceiling on that formula. That results in a loss to
this Province of funds. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if there had been no cap since
1982, when the most recent equalization plan was put in place, this Province
would have received an additional $800 million over that twenty year period.
That is a significant number, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the needs that we
have in this Province to provide for services, to pay our debt and our interest
on our debt, and to look after the needs of this Province, and to try and be
innovative and creative in sorting out some of the inequities within our
Province between people.
To use an example though, Mr. Speaker, of the concerns that a lot of people
have about the equalization formula, we have to look at the clawback. The
clawback is a situation where, when we earn money, new money from tax revenues
in this Province, that sum is just taken away from what we would otherwise
receive in equalization payments. So we have a net benefit of zero if we are
losing dollar for dollar on revenues that we earn in this Province. Let me give
you the biggest example that I know of, and that is the proposals and
projections for the Voisey's Bay project put forth by Inco. These figures are
not mine. These are figures that were produced by Inco as a result of a request
from the Federal Environmental Assessment Panel looking into the Voisey's Bay
project and they gave an economic impact statement based on a fiscal model. They
were looking at the employment impacts of the Voisey's Bay project, which they
projected at 28,000 person years of employment.
For the total project they also looked at the provincial and federal treasury
impacts, and the treasury impacts are what money the Government of Newfoundland
taxes; whether they be corporate income tax, mining taxes, personal income taxes
from the employees working there, sales taxes, EI premiums, et cetera. What we
$4.9 billion over the life of the project, and the Newfoundland and Labrador
Government would have a net revenue of $417 million. Four hundred and seventeen
million for Newfoundland and Labrador and $4.9 billion for the Government of
Canada; more than ten times as much. That is on a project based solely in this
Province using a mineral resource that is wholly owned by the people of this
Province, in the ground in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no dispute about
ownership; not like offshore oil and gas. This is a provincial resource mined
and processed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the net benefits
to the people of this Province through the tax system are $417 million, and to
Mr. Speaker, that stark figure, that stark realization, is enough to make you
wonder how it is we can ever get ahead in this Province, within this country,
ago, three years ago now, and I raised it again and again because it is the
starkest example that there is as to how the equalization formula and the
clawback provisions work against this Province. Equalization is only part of the
problem here, and I have to recognize that. Equalization causes about $1.2
billion worth of inequality. If you took the equalization part of it out of this
formula, the provincial treasury revenues would be $1.5 billion and the federal
would be $3.7 billion. So, we do have a deficiency in terms of the level and
type of royalties that we extract, and taxes that we extract from mineral
development.
The minister from Labrador is having some trouble with his earpiece there.
Maybe it is the volume that is affecting him, but the minister for Labrador, the
Member for Lake Melville, will know that in Labrador West the taxation system
for this Province is terrible. It is miserable. It goes back to 1938 when the
Commission of Government was happy enough to give a mineral lease and a
provision that guaranteed that they did not have to pay any corporate income
tax, and our mineral tax on the minerals from Labrador. So, we get less.
It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the Budget. Look at our
Budget and our Estimates and you see that the whole of resource revenues in this
Province, mineral tax and royalties, amounts to about $50 million, and our
provincial revenues from lottery tickets and lottery sales alone is in excess of
$100 million. So, we have some problems by our own but when we see these kinds
of numbers that are affected by the equalization formula we know that we have a
serious problem and it has to be changed.
Mr. Speaker, we do have support outside the Province for changes to these
formulas. The New Democratic Party of Canada at its convention in August of
1999, in Ottawa, supported a resolution brought forward by St. John's East
Federal Riding Association. I spoke to that resolution in Ottawa and we got
unanimous support for a resolution to review and change the equalization formula
to make it fairer for economic development in places like Newfoundland and
Labrador. So, we do have support outside this Province for significant changes
in the equalization formula.
We now have support from the Senate Committee which its report was issued the
other day. The Senate Standing Committee on National Finance, chaired by Senator
Lowell Murray, issued a report recently which supported a number of changes to
the equalization formula, some of which would benefit significantly this
Province. We have to move forward, Mr. Speaker, to bring about significant
changes to the equalization formula for the benefit of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
So, I support the first part of the resolution wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker. I
know, sometimes, there are difficulties in private member's resolutions,
especially where members phrase things in a certain way to try and make it
difficult for other people to support them, or have them vague enough that it is
difficult to know what exactly you are supporting.
I have a bit of a problem with the second part of the resolve: House go on
record of supporting the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and Premier of
Nova Scotia in campaigning for fairness as it relates to offshore resource
royalties. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that there needs to be a
campaign, the offshore royalties, the royalties are set by this Province. We are
the ones who set the royalties. I suppose the mover means that the clawback as
it relates to them, or something like that. It is a little bit vague here.
I have a serious problem with offshore royalties in this Province, the
formulas that are used, how they are devised, the fact that there was no public
consultation or discussion before agreements were put in place, and all of those
things that really have to be changed. Obviously, I suppose what the mover means
is that we want a greater level of fairness in terms of the clawback so that we
do not get nailed on collecting revenues on one hand and giving them back to
Ottawa with the other. That is something that I think we have to - having them
(inaudible). That is something that I can support.
I know we have significant differences between the Atlantic Accord as it
affects Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. We have formulas for our
royalties that prevent us from taking full advantage of the Atlantic Accord
because we are actually letting the developers of offshore resources of this
Province recoup all their capital costs before our royalty system properly kicks
in. The ten- or twelve-year formula that is spelled out in the Atlantic Accord
will be gone before we get any significant revenues from the offshore oil
development.
There are serious problem with the way we do things as well, and the way we
have done things in our own offshore; but, with respect to equalization, I have
to support the resolution and to support the amendment which is a little bit
more clear, because the amendment says -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is now up.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: I just need a minute to refer to the amendment which
recognizes that all non-renewable resource revenues be exempt from the federal
clawback under our equalization formula. That would provide us with a measure of
protection so that we could go ahead and have a proper regime to recover from
our resources the proper level of royalties and be able to keep them for
ourselves, Mr. Speaker, so that we can come to the point that we need to get to
where our revenues are equal to our ability to pay for our system, to pay for
our public institutions, to pay properly for our health care system, to provide
for our share of a national pharmacare system, which I believe we should have,
and to do other things that need to be done to bring about greater equalization
within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as across the country.
The equalization formula and how it operates does not do a proper job of
ensuring that we have regional equity, or interprovincial equity, in the
country. That is a very basic point about Confederation, that we are sadly
lacking from right now. We need to see a change and I want to be on record,
along with all other members of the House, I hope, in supporting a major effort
to bring about changes to the equalization formula so it better serves the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to participate in the debate, the
private member's resolution that has been put forward by my hon. colleague,
related to the serious inequities as we deal with the imbalance, I guess, is the
best way to put it, the serious inequities between the federal government and
the provincial government.
My colleague from Ferryland has articulated very clearly, I believe, the
financial consequences on the one hand but also, in a very articulate and
forthright manner, what has transpired in the last seven to eight years in
particular as it relates to transfers from this Province under the Canada Health
and Social Transfer Act, and what we have lost as a result of that imbalance
that was perpetrated and complied with, I might add, by former members of the
federal government, including the former Premier and former federal Fisheries
Minister.
I am not going to revisit that ground because it has already been visited
and, in a way, I think that does more than justice to it; only to say, as my
colleague has pointed out, that the amount of money alone, $776.5 million less
than what we should have been receiving, and that has provided, obviously, some
serious, serious challenges to everybody in the Province and certainly the
government. That is acknowledged, and I want to be on record as acknowledging
that.
I also note that with respect to the issue of equalization, that in our own
Legislature, in terms of treating opportunities fairly and squarely in dealing
with benefits for the people of the Province, the government has raised the
notion that we are not receiving our just reward, or the benefits accruing from
the Atlantic Accord have not been forthcoming. It begs this question, and the
Minister of Mines and Energy, who is the custodian over that Accord on behalf of
the government and the people of the Province, it begs the question that, before
any development - offshore development - can go ahead, there is a process by
which it must take place.
First of all, the proponent puts forward a plan. Hearings are conducted. The
C-NOPB - the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board - makes its
recommendations. Those recommendations go to two ministers: the federal minister
responsible for energy or natural resources, whoever it may be at the time in
the federal Cabinet, and the Minister of Mines and Energy in this Province.
Before any development can go ahead, whether that be Hibernia, whether that be
Terra Nova, whether it be White Rose, Ben Nevis, or any other future development
in natural gas, that minister's signature must be on the development scheme.
When he receives, or the government receives, through him, the proponent's
application that has been vetted through the process, through the C-NOPB, the
minister and the government can say they can reject all of the recommendations,
some of the recommendations, accept all of the recommendations or only some of
the recommendations. He has the power, and the government has the power, to say
that this development can only go ahead under the following conditions.
It cannot go ahead in our absence. Our signature must be on the document. It
must be, along with the federal minister's signature. You cannot stand up
necessarily on the one hand and complain about benefits from the Atlantic Accord
have not been accruing to the Province as they should have been, when you have
participated in allowing that to happen. That is the facts of the situation as
they are. Those are not my opinions. Those are not the opinions of any one
particular person, group, or agency in the Province. That is the way it is.
The legislation on development schemes and plans demand, require, it is
mandatory, for the Province to sign off. If the government of the day, the
Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, through the Minister of Mines and
Energy, do not sign off on a development scheme, that project does not go ahead.
That is the way it works.
On the one hand, we are talking about fairness and correcting inequities. We
complain on the one hand, government has, that we are not getting the benefits
accrued or should be accruing to the Province, but yet, it is that very
government that signed off on those development schemes. No question about it,
the former former Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier has asked, would I permit an interjection. If
the Premier can assure me that his interjection is going to add to the debate in
a positive way, then absolutely. I will certainly permit an interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted, for further clarity, to the point - what the hon. member says
is exactly correct with respect to the sign-off by the two governments in order
for the project to proceed. The issue that is being addressed here today with
respect to the unfairness of the Accord, is that once the project proceeds with
the conditions that are attached by the federal and provincial governments -
because with White Rose, for example, if it proceeds, there were thirty-eight
conditions agreed to by the two governments.
What we are talking about here in the Accord though is that once the project
does proceed and revenues from the royalty stream, which are not part of that
approval process, that does not get approved in that process. The development
plan gets approved by the two governments. The Accord says, when the money
starts to flow, because the oil is actually produced. Then the inequity comes in
where we were supposed to be the principal beneficiaries, but the Accord itself
needs to be amended because we only get to keep thirty cents on a dollar,
seventy cents goes back to the federal government and then they clawback part of
the thirty cents. So that is not covered and that is not what is signed-off by
the governments when they agree to a development plan. So there are two
different parts and this motion today, as I understand it, is dealing with the
inequity of the cash flows from the revenues. What the hon. member said about
the approvals is 100 per cent correct in terms of letting it proceed in a
certain fashion in the first instances.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough, the Premier wanted to lay a point of view on
the table. To a large degree, there is some merit in what the Premier has said.
However, knowing the Atlantic Accord as I do, I am not professing to be the
ultimate authority on what is contained in its document, but I do know what is
contained in this document. I would not say any better than anybody else but
certainly, I will not go as far to say that any worse than anybody else either.
I recall, as a former critic for Mines and Energy, when the Terra Nova
development went ahead, for example. We sought intervener status and, through
myself, the caucus made at the time a presentation to the board in terms of what
the benefits should be. One of the big problems that we had at the time, and we
predicted at the time, was that we traded off significant benefits to the
Province. We said the government has traded off significant benefits to the
Province because they have opted for more royalties and have lost the boat when
it came to jobs and technology transfer. We felt at the time, and we said it in
writing, that the significant loss at that time would be enormous. It has proven
to be so.
For example, all of the procurement that was done on that project, and by
that I mean, whether it is a roll of toilet paper, materials needed for the
structure that was built outside the Province - all of that was done, all of
that procurement - from a faucet required on a sink - all of that was done
outside this Province. When it came to technology transfer and building a
heightened educational workforce or a heightened trained workforce, where did
the engineering work take place? It took place in Leatherhead, England. That was
done because the provincial government let it be done.