Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Government Business — 19 May 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 33)
2004-05-19
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 19, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 33
The House met at 2.00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
This afternoon we would like to welcome some special guests to our gallery.
First of all we would like to welcome one of our retired Commissionaires, Mr.
Ladd Bursey, he served in our House from 1992 to 2003. We want to thank him for
his many years of service and wishing him a very happy retirement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: We also would like to recognize fifty Grade 5 students from
Larkhall Academy in the District of St. John's North, with their teachers: Mr.
Ralph Cann and Ms Penny Pinsent. Also, they have chaperones: Frank Hatcher,
Yvonne Urovski, Mary Hewitt and Tanya Shalaby. Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Before we begin the regular procedures this afternoon the
Speaker would like to rule on the point of privilege raised by Leader of the
Opposition on Thursday, May 13, and by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au
Clair on Monday, May 17.
In that there is a commonalty in the points of privilege, the Speaker will
deal with them concurrently.
The purpose of privilege is to allow Members of the House of Assembly
"to carry out their duties as representatives of the electorate without
undue interference." A quote from Marleau & Montpetit.
The role of the Speaker is limited to deciding if the matter raised by a
member or members is of such a character as to entitle the member or members
raising the question to move a motion which would have priority in the House. In
such matters, the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of breach of
privilege has occurred. Should the Speaker determine that a prima facie breach
exists, it is incumbent on the House itself to determine what actions should be
taken. In such instances, the matter would be referred to a House Committee on
Privileges as per Standing Order 65 and there would be a subsequent report to
the House after such study and consultations as the Committee would determine.
During this process, the matter may be remedied at any stage by actions taken
by persons or groups named in the point of privilege. In most instances, an
acknowledgement of an error or an apology to the House by persons or groups of
persons named in the point of privilege puts an end to the matter.
The point of privilege raised by members sitting in Opposition in recent days
focus on the contents of documents released to them by the Executive Council and
relate to decisions made by government in the implementation of budgetary
policy. This document was not tabled in the House and is therefore not a part of
the regular parliamentary proceedings. However, the Chair is very cognizant of
the expectation that documents shared by government with members sitting in
Opposition or with the public in general through its departments or executive
branches be accurate and reliable.
On Thursday, May 13, when this matter was first raised, the Government House
Leader gave a commitment to review the issues raised by the Leader of the
Opposition to enter a report to the House later in the same setting. However,
towards the end of that sitting day, by agreement the commentary on the review
of the Government House Leader was deferred to Tuesday, May 18. There was
agreement on both sides of the House to defer the matter.
On Tuesday, May 18, the Government House Leader was out of the Province on
government business and in his absence, the Acting House Leader, the Minister of
Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs reviewed the matters raised in
the points of privilege and apologized for any errors in the document shared
with members in Opposition by the Executive Council. In a ministerial statement,
his exact words in reference to the inaccuracies were, "For this we
apologize." Later, in responding to a point of order raised by the
Opposition House Leader, the Acting Government House Leader stated, "In the
apology, in acknowledging we made some errors and apologizing to the House, I
apologized on behalf of the government for the misinformation and on behalf of
the Minister of Government Services and on behalf of my colleague, the Minister
of Tourism, Culture and Recreation."
Furthermore, in Question Period, the Premier accepted full responsibility for
any mistakes made by his government on this matter. To quote the Premier,
"As the duly elected Premier of the Province, elected by the people of the
Province and as Leader of this government, I accept full responsibility for any
mistakes of my government at any particular point in time."
In the opinion of the Chair, the statements made by the Acting House Leader
and the Premier resolved the issues in the point of privilege raised on
Thursday, May 13 by the Leader of the Opposition and the point of privilege
raised on Monday, May 17 by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
In the House on Tuesday, May 18, the Leader of the Opposition raised a point
of order with regard to whether or not the statement of apology offered by the
Acting Government House Leader and the acknowledgment by the Premier of mistakes
could or should be extended to include the Minister of Environment and
Conservation, the Minister of Government Services and the Minister of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation.
I do believe that members will acknowledge there is a long standing tradition
in our parliamentary system that the House Leaders speak for and on behalf of
their respective parliamentary caucuses.
In addition, members will note that essential to the Westminster model of
democracy is that the executive branch be responsible to Parliament. The Leader
of the parliamentary group with majority support in Parliament, the Queen's
First Minister, was asked by the Lieutenant-Governor to name members of a
ministry. It is the exclusive prerogative of the Chief Minister or the Premier
to invite members to the ministry. The core of responsible government is that
the ministry must be answerable to the House of Assembly and must maintain
majority support. In such matters, the Premier as the First Minister speaks for
and on behalf of all ministers and the government as a collectivity or
Administration. Thus, the Chair rules that the apologies offered by the House
Leader and, more specifically, the acknowledgment by the First Minister that
mistakes had been made must be accepted on behalf of all ministers and would
include all those involved in the Executive Branch, whether the individual
members are named or unnamed. Thus, there is no point of order.
Further, yesterday, there was a point of order raised by the Opposition House
Leader with regard to comments made by the Premier in reference to the Leader of
the Opposition. The Chair has reviewed Hansard, has taken note of the original
exchange and the Premier's subsequent withdrawal of the remark.
The Chair notes that, in the withdrawal, the Premier did not do so
unequivocally. The Premier's comment was: I actually withdraw that remark, Mr.
Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is, in fact, no-faced.
I ask the Premier now to withdraw his comment, and to do so unequivocally.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I unequivocally withdraw that comment, Mr. Speaker, and
apologize to the House.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: We have notice of the following statements by members: the
Member for St. Barbe; the Member for Exploits, the Leader of the Opposition; the
Member for Trinity North; the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; and the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate an outstanding student from the District of St.
Barbe who has accomplished a significant academic achievement.
Ms Sheralyn Rumbolt of Norris Point has been awarded one of three
International Baccalaureate scholarships for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, as recipient of the scholarship, Sheralyn will attend Holy Heart
of Mary High School in St. John's for her Level III studies. Holy Heart is one
of only 1,425 schools in the world to offer International Baccalaureate.
Sheralyn's selection comes from many applications from throughout the
Province to the provincial selection committee. After a screening process and
personal interviews, she was named a recipient. She will also receive $12,000 to
complete her studies in St. John's.
Sheralyn will be attending a program that is highly respected and demanding;
however, I am positive that Sheralyn, who currently attends Gros Morne Academy
in Rocky Harbour, will excel in the International Baccalaureate program and
whichever path she chooses after.
Mr. Speaker, I ask Members of the House of Assembly to join me in
congratulating Sheralyn Rumbolt for this significant achievement and wish her
success in her future endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits and Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a young man from Exploits District,
who has recently distinguished himself in his studies of faith.
Mr. Speaker, Patrick Penton, a nineteen-year-old student of William and
Catherine Bible College in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and a resident of Bishop's
Falls, has been invited to travel to London, England, and Dublin, Ireland, to
preach and to lead some revival services while there.
Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous honour for a talented young man from my
district. Since the age of seven, Patrick has known that he wanted to dedicate
his life to the service of God. With his study, he has shown passion and
leadership, and this recent distinction of an invitation to lead revival
meetings in Europe continues to show that his selfless service is the right path
for him.
Mr. Speaker, I know Patrick will do a great job while preaching in Europe and
continue to be an excellent ambassador for the Province and the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask all members to join me in congratulating Patrick and wishing him the
very best as he continues his studies.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today my colleague, the Minister of Education, announced three provincial
winners of this year's International Baccalaureate scholarships. I am very
proud to rise today to say that two of those winners are from my district.
Mr. Speaker, the International Baccalaureate program is a demanding,
pre-university course of study designed for highly motivated high school
students, which offers a comprehensive international curriculum and stresses
critical thinking and inter-cultural understanding. Graduates are well prepared
to enter university with advanced standing.
One of the awards is the prestigious Lester B. Pearson Scholarship and it was
awarded to Miss Simone Warren of Little Heart's Ease. This scholarship of
$52,000 will fund Miss Warren's attendance at the University World College in
the Victoria, B.C. Mr. Speaker, she will be among 100 students who have been
selected from some eighty countries around the world to attend the University
World College this fall.
The second scholarship, offered by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
provides funding for two other students to attend Holy Heart of Mary High School
in St. John's, which also offers the International Baccalaureate program as
part of the its established curriculum.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. WISEMAN: This program is offered as a part of their regular
curriculum. Ms Stephanie Smith of Port Rexton is one of the two recipients of
this award.
Mr. Speaker, both Simone and Stephanie have excelled in academic achievement.
As well, they have both displayed dedication to their respective communities
through participation in an extensive array of volunteer and extra-curricular
activities.
I ask the members of this House to acknowledge today and to congratulate
those two fine young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because they are an
exceptional example of what can be achieved in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
One other final point, Mr. Speaker. These two students are, as I said
earlier, two of three for the Province, and they both happen to be students in a
small all-grade school in two separate small rural communities in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
I think it is a real tribute to these two young ladies, their families, their
parents, and the staff of those schools that they attend, who have prepared
those students for the future in the manner in which they have.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this year will always be remembered as one of the best
competitions ever for swimmers from Grand Falls-Windsor.
On May 8, approximately 200 swimmers from across our Province participated in
the Provincial Long Course Swimming Championship in St. John's, and four
swimmers from Grand Falls-Windsor came away with a total of ten medals.
Erica Kelly's hard work and dedication to her sport paid off as she was
awarded four gold medals for her finishes in the competition, while Jared Bursey
came away with two gold medals and a bronze.
Mary Clair Lynch, a first-time competitor in this annual event, earned a
silver and a bronze medal for her finish in the 100- and 200-metre breast
stroke, which earned her a place in the East Coast Championship to be held in
St. John's in July.
Rochelle Gladney earned a bronze medal for her time in the 200-metre
freestyle.
These young people are truly dedicated to their sport and they have
represented our community and Province proudly. I ask all members of this House
to join me in congratulating these four young swimmers on their amazing
accomplishments.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge the recognition
given to one of our best-known Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on her being
invested as an Officer of the Order of Canada on Friday, May 14.
Nancy Riche was born and grew up in the Battery, here in St. John's, and
started her career as an instructor in what is now the College of the North
Atlantic. Her involvement with NAPE and the National Union of Provincial
Government Employees led to a lengthy career with the Canadian Labour Congress
and the Federal New Democratic Party in the forefront of labour, social and
political battles nationally and internationally until her retirement last year.
Her citation from Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson reads as follows,
"Nancy Riche is a committed, courageous champion of workers' rights.
Involved for decades, she has broken new ground for women within the labour
movement and attained one of its highest positions, secretary treasurer of the
Canadian Labour Congress. Respected by business and labour leaders alike, she
tackled issues such as racism and discrimination in the workplace, maternal and
paternal leave and accessible quality childcare. Former vice-president of the
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, she represented more than 62
million women at meetings organized by numerous international bodies, including
the World Trade Organization."
I would ask that all hon. members join me in congratulating Nancy Riche on
her investiture as an Officer of the Order of Canada and to recognize the great
contribution that she has made to our Province and country, and indeed around
the world.
We are proud of her accomplishments and hope she continues to play an active
role in our Province for many years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise at this time on a point of order, before we get into Question Period,
concerning an incident that occurred yesterday as we were concluding things in
the House here. This is a point of order dealing with unparliamentary language
and decorum in the House. I stand at this time because I like to do it at the
earliest opportunity.
It was brought to my attention, actually, after the motion was made by the
Acting Government House Leader to adjourn. It deals with, when the Leader of the
Opposition was speaking to Bill 7, the Member for St. John's West, who is also
the Chairperson of Committees, shouted across the House several times,
"slime". The word "slime" was uttered several times by the
Member for St. John's West.
Mr. Speaker, we raise this point of order because there are several aspects
to why this is of concern here. The Members for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, Fogo
& Twillingate, and the Bay of Islands, will attest to the fact that it was
uttered. It is important for two reasons. First, of course, it is
unparliamentary language. Whether the Chair heard it or not, the member knows
the statements were made, and members on this side certainly heard the
statements, and that is unparliamentary by anyone's definition.
The other concern is the fact that the Member for St. John's West is also
the Chairperson of Committees. In that capacity, a very important capacity, and
supposedly an impartial capacity in this House, the governance of this House is
sometimes under the direction of that person. She decides, in fact, and rules
upon issues of unparliamentary language and decorum in the House. We submit, Mr.
Speaker, that it would be impossible for members of the House to expect
impartiality from the Chair of Committees when she is in the Chair, if, when she
is sitting as the Member for St. John's West, it is her opinion that persons
on this side of the House are, in fact, categorized, in her view, as slime.
She may indeed have two separate and distinct roles, one as the MHA for St.
John's West - it has come up in this House before, as to the fact that she
does have two separate roles - and she has another role as the Chairperson of
Committees. The same person, with the same conscience and the same attitude,
controls both of those positions. We would submit that it is absolutely improper
and inappropriate behavior. Members on both side of the House must have, and
should have nothing other than, complete impartiality from persons who act as
Chair in this House.
Mr. Speaker, we would ask you to rule on this point of order, because it has
come up earlier, as to what her duel roles would be and what she can or ought to
do. I would suggest that maybe a good starting point in this whole process is if
she admits she made the statements, withdraws the comments and unequivocally
apologizes for having made them. That would probably go a long ways to resolving
the situation.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess the general point that the Opposition House Leader has made is to
deal with language that may be inflammatory. While I agree, I recall standing on
many points of order when the Premier has been called, in this House, a racist,
a dictator, Pinocchio. Last week there was reference made about when he was in
Germany promoting the Province, how he was in the right place.
I share any member's concern about the language used in the House, but it
is a two-way street and the cloth does cut both ways. It is a reminder, I guess,
to all members, that whatever is said we ought to be careful.
Secondly, and more importantly, to the point that the Opposition House Leader
has raised with respect to the role of the Member for St. John's West in her
capacity as Chair. This point should also be made to the Member for Bonavista
South in his capacity as Deputy Speaker.
I want to refer the Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker, and yourself as
well, to a ruling made by former Speaker Snow, and certainly to Marleau ,
when it outlines the rules of Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees on page
294. The fact of the matter is this, that the primary role of both the Deputy
Speaker and the Chair of Committees is to support you, Sir, in your capacity as
Speaker. That means the role when we move into Committee and other roles as
well.
I recall raising a point of order about a former Deputy Speaker who had made
comments publicly about the leader of the party at the time - in this case it
was the Premier - about two-and-a-half, three years ago. The ruling was very
clear. The ruling was that while the Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees
service, in a sense in terms of the role, that they do also have obligations as
private members or members within the House.
I do want to reference, Mr. Speaker, all members, but in particular, you, to
that ruling made by former Speaker Snow. I think the ruling at the time, while
we necessarily did not agree with it, certainly was one that was in the
parliamentary sense, quite correct.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair notes that the Speaker was not in the Chair at the
time. I do believe, according to the reference made, perhaps by the Opposition
House Leader, that this occurred, perhaps, during the Committee stage yesterday
afternoon.
The Chair will consult with the Chair of the Committees, the Member for
Bonavista South, and will also ask to have the tapes heard and will come back to
the House at a later date when we can have some clarity.
The Chair cannot rule on the matter now because the Chair did not hear the
comments. The Chair needs to seek advice and the Chair needs to consult with the
person who was in the Chair at the time, the Deputy Speaker. We will come back
to the House at the appropriate time.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to announce this government's plan
to ensure compliance of Voisey's Bay Nickel Company with its adjacency
principle for the mine/mill portion of the Voisey's Bay project.
The Voisey's Bay mine/mill project is a very significant development for
Labrador and it is important to the residents of Labrador that they derive as
much employment and training opportunities as possible from the project. VBNC
has given a commitment to hire qualified residents of Labrador on this component
of the project and has taken measures to ensure its hiring and the hiring done
by its contractors follow its adjacency principle.
Nevertheless, government has a role to provide oversight on major
resource-based projects on behalf of the people of this Province, a role that we
take seriously. This government intends to carry out our responsibility to
ensure that VBNC lives up, in every sense of the word, to its commitment of
adjacency.
Mr. Speaker, in August 2003, the previous government established a short-term
contractual position to monitor VBNC's compliance with its adjacency
principle. The position was not funded under the departmental salary budget and
the cost had to be covered through forced savings elsewhere in the department's
budget. After assuming responsibility on behalf of the government for the
Department of Mines and Energy, at the time in November 2003, on behalf of the
government I gave direction to continue the position, eventually to the end of
the fiscal year until we, as a government, and myself, as minister, had an
opportunity to undertake a full review of the position, its function, and how it
relates to ensuring compliance with adjacency principle.
We have looked at various means within the constraints of a reduced budget,
to continue, and indeed strengthen, governments's role as it relates to the
Voisey's Bay adjacency commitment. I have also had consultations with my
colleagues, the Minister responsible for Labrador, and the Minister responsible
for Aboriginal Affairs, as well as the Member for Lake Melville, over the
concept of using shared resources to carry out this important responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to announce that government will improve and
strengthen its effort to ensure VBNC's compliance with its adjacency
principle. The responsibility of this compliance will be shared between the
office of the Department of Natural Resources in Labrador City, Wabush, and the
office of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay.
Mr. Speaker, this decision makes absolute best use of existing personnel in
the Labrador offices of the Departments of Natural Resources and Labrador and
Aboriginal Affairs. The responsibility will be carried out by permanent staff
who live in Labrador, and who are well-versed in the employment opportunities
and challenges associated with the Voisey's Bay project. This arrangement will
give permanency to the functon that did not exist previously. It will also
concerns over employment and training opportunities at the Voisey's Bay mine
site.
Mr. Speaker, I assure the residents of Labrador that this government has
every intention of holding VBNC to its commitments of adjacency. The major
difference, and fundamental difference, this time between the monitoring
function and what we are calling the compliance function, and ensuring
compliance is that VBNC has agreed to openly share all employment information
with the government. Having access to this information, which was not provided
before, will provide government with the opportunity to assess, to ensure and to
take action, if necessary, if the commitment is not being lived up to.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I can say with great certainty that
there is just as much joy in Labrador today with this announcement as there was
when the government announced they were going to do a study on a tunnel across
The Straits.
Mr. Speaker, what a difference a year makes. First of all, myself and the
former Premier met with a group of people in Labrador who came together to talk
about the monitor at Voisey's Bay. The Member for Lake Melville, who was the
Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay at the time, was adamant and so were members of
the Combined Councils of Labrador, and everyone else, that the monitor be at arm's-length
from government. And what do we find here?
Minister, you may have talked to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the
Minister of Labrador Affairs, but I can guarantee you one thing, you never
talked to the people in Labrador.
Right now, Minister, there are 750 people working in Voisey's Bay. They are
going to peak at 900 this summer. So there are only 150 left. The majority of
these people were hired when you took that monitor away.
Mr. Speaker, I can say that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair reminds members that under Standing Order 63.(7), on Wednesday
afternoon we must begin Question Period at 2:30. By agreement we could complete
this exchange and add the time on after, if that is by agreement of the House.
By agreement.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to confirm that we do have an agreement in that regard. I know I
would not normally have to ask the Government House Leader that, but given what
happened here yesterday by the Premier with the revocation of leave, I just want
to be certain that we are not going to have any problems with this today. By
consenting to this arrangement, we will go and do what we all want to do, for
example, finish the ministerial statements and responses, have our thirty minute
Question Period and then get into the private member's motion.
MR. SPEAKER: That is certainly the Chair's understanding and that is
the agreement. I do believe the member has about forty seconds left in his
response to the ministerial statement.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can say to the minister that there are some of us who have worked very
hard. I have received as much as thirty phone calls a day from people wanting to
get into Voisey's Bay, and I have taken the time to try and help them.
Let me close by saying this, Minister: Obviously your government has many
priorities, but certainly, from what you are proposing to the people of
Labrador, it shows the people in Labrador that they are very low on your
priority list.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advanced copy. I am certainly hopeful that this
system will work because one think I do know, Mr. Speaker, is that the previous
system did not. That, I do know.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: I have had lots of frustrations with this. As a matter of
fact, members of this House, who were here at the time, will recall that I
raised a question of monitor first but I did not want a monitor with his hands
tied and no tools to do any work, and I am hoping this will provide that. I am
also interested in seeing how these training opportunities will coincide with
employment.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that compliance officers will have
their work cut out because, in this paper I have here, there is one company with
a total of 140 employees, eight-eight of whom are not even from the Province.
Not even from the Province, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. COLLINS: I want to say that I have lobbied long and hard for this and
I have had many conversations with the current minister, as I have had with past
ministers as well, and I am glad to see that one of these people will be in
Labrador West, in the area that I represent, so that people can go to them.
I certainly hope as well, Mr. Speaker, that the people who have complaints,
people from Labrador who have complaints, will be able to get their complaints
listened to, but, more importantly, corrected. I think that has to be a
fundamental part of this, and I hope that we have access to the information that
the compliance officer will have, too; because, if we look at the numbers that
were given, currently there are 319 people on site from Labrador. There are 242
from the Island portion of the Province, and there are over 100 from outside the
Province.
Mr. Speaker, I have a real concern with this because the 319 people from
Labrador, with all due respect to the previous speaker, if we look at the
Aboriginal community, who have their own agreements concerning Voisey's Bay -
and rightfully so, and rightfully so they should get employment for jobs there -
but if we take away and look at the remainder of Labrador, who do not have an
agreement other than the one signed by government, that only leaves the same
number of people from Labrador working at Voisey's Bay as there is from
everywhere else in the country. That is not the purpose of that deal. That is
not the obligation that was given to the people of Labrador when this deal was
being sowed, and that is not what the people of Labrador expect.
I am hoping that, once this compliance officer starts their work, that people
will be lined up, I can assure you of that. I hope that when they are lined up
and show their qualifications and say here is somebody in Voisey's Bay working
who has the same qualifications that I have, then I hope that on the initial
flight into Voisey's Bay, that person is on board the aircraft and, on the
return flight, the person who is there with the same qualifications is on the
one back out.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions?
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: I was advised, Mr. Speaker, that there was going to be a
Ministerial Statement by the Minister of Justice. That is why I stood up.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the leave of the House that we will continue with
Ministerial Statements?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to announce today that Newfoundland and Labrador has become the
sixth Canadian province to introduce tobacco-free environments at Adult
Correctional Facilities. The eight Provincial Correctional Facilities are fully
compliant and have been tobacco-free as of May 3.
The designation to tobacco-free follows an extensive four-month sequence of
activities, where inmates and employees participated in educational and smoking
cessation programs, and were provided with a short-term provision of
pharmacological aids.
Mr. Speaker, the adult custody facilities include: Her Majesty's
Penitentiary, Salmonier Correctional Institution, Bishop's Falls Correctional
Centre, West Coast Correctional Centre in Stephenville, Newfoundland and
Labrador Correctional Centre for Women, Labrador Correctional Centre and the
lock-up facilities in both St. John's and Corner Brook.
I am pleased to report that the transition has been smooth and without major
incident. The initiative will provide a healthier living and working environment
for inmates, employees and visitors to the facilities.
Mr. Speaker, the success of this program is due in large part to employees in
the Division of Corrections and Community Services, Newfoundland and Labrador
Lung Association, and the John Howard Society, who assisted with the
administration of the program. I would like to take this opportunity to commend
the organizers and facilitators of this initiative. Much time and effort has
helped make this a smooth and positive transition.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Notwithstanding the minister's statement, I understand it was not without
incident - maybe major incident - and I understand it certainly was not a smooth
transition, particularly for some of the inmates at Her Majesty's
Penitentiary.
Mr. Speaker, any initiative that stops smoking, cessation of it, is certainly
appreciated and nice to see. What I would like to see - not only do we snuff out
the butt - I would like to see when this government snuffs out these fluff
announcements that we continue to get during polling periods.
Ministerial Statements are supposed to deal with very strong statements and
important statements of policy. When are we going to hear from this minister
about proclamation of the Privacy Act, the Workers Compensation issue involving
the RNC, the Aboriginal policing issue in Makkovik and Rigolet? Maybe the
minister could take some of this important, valuable time to inform the House
and the people of this Province about some of these more important issues and
snuff out these fluff announcements that we get here.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly welcome the initiative. It is clear recognition by government
that non-smokers who are incarcerated deserve to be protected from second-hand
smoke. I think this is part of the reason for the initiative. I am pleased to
see government recognize that. I am waiting for this government to take action
on a smoke-free environment in other workplaces in the Province, such as bars
and restaurants, where people, not only patrons but workers who are there -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: - are required to endure second-hand smoke, which we know is
carcinogenic, would not be allowed in other industrial settings or any other
workplaces. It is time that we joined the ranks of Ireland, places like New
York, San Francisco and Ottawa, in having a smoke-free environment in bars and
restaurants in this Province as well as in our penitentiaries and public
buildings.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers? Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it was recently reported in the media that the Premier still had
not finalized his Conflict of Interest statement declaring all of his business
interests and ensuring that each of his holdings was placed in a blind trust. It
is expected that all ministers, particularly the Premier, complete this process
in a timely fashion; however, it has taken the Premier now several months to
fulfill the requirement.
A Budget has recently been tabled and a new Department of Business, of which
the Premier is also the Minister Responsible, has been created.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is: Could he please update the people
of the Province as to whether or not he has completed this important requirement
that ensures that he is not in a conflict of interest while making decisions,
either as the Premier or as the Minister Responsible for Business?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, that matter is currently
being dealt with by the Commissioner. I am working with the Commissioner. My
officials are actually working with the Commissioner, my auditors, my financial
advisors. The business holdings that I had are somewhat complex. We are
proceeding as quickly and with all due dispatch that we can in a proper manner.
I have no reason to believe that the Commissioner is dissatisfied with the
process, and my own personal auditor is dealing with that. I see no problem at
this time but we are moving forward. It is a complex situation and I am doing
everything I can to deal with it as soon as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier just recently, in the last couple of days, actually,
has refused to appear before the Estimates Committee for the Department of
Business, that would have allowed the Opposition to ask direct questions related
to the new department.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Was the real reason that he would not agree
to reschedule the Committee a direct result of what he feared could be asked
regarding his personal business holdings and possible conflicts of interest in
his position as Premier and Minister of Business?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the real reason why I was not at that
committee meeting was that I was in Europe. As hon members opposite -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER WILLIAMS: If you would just allow me to answer the question that
you just asked.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I was in Europe, and actually conducting business on
behalf of the Province. As I said, when I answered these questions previously, I
was over there trying to deal with a very difficult situation at 5 Wing Goose
Bay. A piece of business that is worth $100 million to the people of Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, and indeed Labrador generally. A very, very important piece of
business. So that is something we are trying to foster as well.
While I was there - as I indicated when I was on my feet just a couple of
days ago - I met with the Canadian Embassies, and as the Minister of Business I
am trying to do everything possible to attract business to the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in order to create jobs and employment and economic
growth and development for the Province. So I would certainly think that was
very, very productive. As well, I was also dealing with the foreign overfishing
file, which is something of extreme importance to all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier now to complete his answer, quickly.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So, if that is not a satisfactory explanation I can do no more. I was not in
the Province. I was not available. The Estimates were passed. I was doing my
best to grow the Province and develop business for the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The record shows that the Premier is still refusing to meet with the
Committee, who would meet tonight if he wanted to, tomorrow or next week.
Mr. Speaker, a different issue. The Premier stood in this House on Monday and
said he was very concerned with video gambling and related addictions in this
Province, and government has committed a minimal increase in funds to help treat
gambling addictions instead of the 5 per cent share of the profits that the
Finance Minister had proposed.
Mr. Speaker, it was reported in the media several months ago that the Premier
himself was an investor in a company that manufactured, sold, and distributed
video lottery terminals. Can the Premier acknowledge that he was an investor in
such a company, and can he answer whether or not he is still involved in such a
business today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are generally concerned about video lotteries and gambling in
the Province. I indicated, in response to the question from the Member for
Labrador West, that is something of very personal concern to me and, indeed, all
the members on the government side. We have seen the damage and the harm that it
has done to families. We have heard about the suicides. We have heard of,
indeed, about people who have lost their homes. It is very disruptive and it is
a problem, unfortunately, that governments across the country are participating
in and creating this problem. We intend to do everything we can to try and
alleviate it. That is why, as a small initiative in this particular Budget, we
put $100,000 into trying to increase the amount for treatment and
rehabilitation. That is not nearly enough and more is needed. Hopefully, some
day we can get to the wish of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board and, in fact, commit 5 per cent.
With regard to holdings in a corporation, that matter was brought to my
attention some months ago. As the Leader of the Opposition can appreciate, with
the significant business holdings that I do have, I have invested in hundreds of
companies. I am not able to monitor each and every activity of each one of those
companies. There were two companies that were actually brought to my attention
before. One was a company that had interest in private prison holdings. Another
one was one that had an interest in video lottery terminals. As soon as I found
out, I divested of my holdings in those companies. If there is anybody who is
aware of any other holdings in any companies that I have invested in that would
cause any difficulty, I will divest of them just as I divested of my senior
partnership in Williams, Roebothan, McKay and Marshall, something of which I was
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier now to finish his answer quickly.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
- very proud. Something which was very hard to do was to take my name off
that firm. I also sold a company that I had for twenty-five years, which was
Cable Atlantic, which I put a lifetime of effort into and I had a good
relationship with my employees. So, I am doing everything I can to be honourable
and to be above board, and I will continue to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That is exactly why the process is so very important for it to be concluded
with the Chief Electoral Office and why we would invite him again to come before
the Committee as the Minister of Business so we can have him explain these
issues to the people of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, since the Premier's comments on Monday, we, as the Opposition,
have received information that indicates the current government is in
discussions with a business group to establish a casino in the Province. I ask
the Premier: What discussions have taken place with you or any of your ministers
or senior officials regarding the potential establishment of a casino in the
Province, and has an actual proposal been submitted to the government to date?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To my knowledge there was a proposal of sorts, at least an e-mail was sent
inquiring as to whether there was any interest in a casino in the Province. To
my knowledge, that has been just flatly rejected.
For the record, I can indicate to the hon. member opposite that while I was
in the private sector and while he was a member of a government, that I was
actually approached myself to bring a casino to this Province; something which
can be deemed to be very lucrative, very profitable and I flatly rejected that
because I am not prepared to make money off the backs of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have learned, actually, the business group that approached the government
wanted to potentially establish a casino at Marble Mountain. Again, could the
Premier now tell us and report to this House, or the Minister of Finance who
seems to know more about it, as to whether or not this is still an active
proposal? Is it being pursued or is it going to be squashed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was approached by at least two, if not three, and possibly more, certainly
two or three anyway, about a casino. One was by a personal friend of the Leader
of the Opposition, who contacted me on behalf of a client, and I responded to
every single one saying that it is not a policy of government to go down that
road, basically. I just responded personally with the e-mail myself, and with a
telephone call in each case. There are at least two or three, and there might
even be four, but certainly in that range. In fact, I did not even take it to
anybody in government. I did not take it to Cabinet. It was not a policy
direction of this government, one that we did not entertain, one we did not
proceed on, and for that reason that is where it ended, right when it came to my
office.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier, last week, I tabled a private member's resolution in this House -
it is on today's Order Paper, in fact - calling on the creation of an
all-party committee which would draft an agreement or an accord to be presented
to and endorsed by all candidates and all leaders of all parties in the upcoming
federal election. The Leader of the NDP has publicly stated in this House that
he is supportive of that resolution.
You indicated on Monday past, when you returned to the House here, that you
would review the motion that I had made, and you would provide us with your
position regarding this resolution. We have not heard from you to date, Premier,
and the time is quickly passing. In fact, I would suggest that if we do not make
a decision on doing this all-party committee accord prior to the announcement of
a federal election, we may indeed have lost a great opportunity to get these
people on the record.
Will you agree to debate the resolution, which was tabled and is on today's
Order Paper, immediately? In fact, the resolution on the paper today, by the
Member for Bonavista South, dealing with highways and federal-provincial
agreements, would fit excellently under the same debate, as part of the same
debate, and we could have that debate right here today. We just await your
concurrence to do that Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, Mr. Speaker. I think when the Leader of the Opposition
mentioned it on Monday, I thought I had heard it was the Member for Fortune
Bay-Cape la Hune who had made a resolution. That is what I thought I heard.
Forgive me, I am having some hearing problems from time to time.
I went back and researched to see what the resolution that was put forward by
the hon. gentleman was, and it did not seem to fit. Having said that, now that
the Opposition House Leader has indicated - I have to indicate to him that it is
not something that we need to debate today, nor are we prepared to debate. We,
as a government, are moving forward. When it comes to stating the position of
the Province, I am a member of the Council of the Federation. We, as Premiers,
had a conference call just a couple of days ago with regard to putting our joint
position forward on such matters as health care, equalization, government
funding, many, many broad issues. As the former Premier understands, that is our
role as a government, to move forward. As I have indicated, I have also written
the leaders of the parties, and intend to do so.
Even more importantly, though, why would you hitch your horse to a wagon with
no wheels on it? That is what I would like to understand, because, if we join
with -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: - if we join with the hon. member opposite, of course,
who admitted on April 30, 2003: I wanted him to know that the federal-provincial
relationship is strained and is at and all-time low.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Why would this government join with this particular
former government, who destroyed every relationship that they ever had with
anyone in Ottawa? We are not hitching our horse to that wagon, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier is certainly the person to be talking about what wagons he
hitches his horse to. The man who promotes team-ship to the ultimate, goes off
to Europe without the principal people involved in the 5 Wing Base and contrary
to the input of the member for Labrador, the MP for Labrador. That is the
Premier who is all about team-ship.
Premier, I doubt very much if you have read the resolution, actually. Maybe
you might take a moment to read it; but, on the assumption that you have taken
the time to read it, which only calls for an all-party committee which would ask
the federal candidates, parties and leaders, to endorse a lot of things that
this Province is concerned about, such as EI, such as our federal-provincial
agreements like Roads Agreements, health care contributions, et cetera.
Can you tell us what is wrong with the resolution, and tell the people of the
Province what is wrong with the resolution, other than the fact that you did not
come up with it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would certainly think that the hon. member opposite certainly owes the
Member for Lake Melville an apology, in the fact that he certainly was not
important enough to go along.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I also find it very, very strange that he considers Mr.
Randy Ford, the head of PSAC, the head of the union at the base, was not
important enough to take along, and that my deputy minister was not important
enough to take along. I am just amazed that this gentleman would make that
statement about those people who attended.
With regard to the other issues, we, as a government, will be taking this
issue, as a government, forward. I have spoken to the Prime Minister on two
occasions in the last two weeks, when it comes to major matters like foreign
overfishing. I have been dealing with the Prime Minister directly. When it comes
to dealing with the federal minister, unfortunately there is a very, very poor
relationship between that government and that leader of that party with the
Minister of Natural Resources, who is the minister for this particular Province.
So, the worst thing we could possibly do is to align ourselves with the hon.
members opposite who, as I said, have burned every single bridge behind them and
have taken federal-provincial relations to an all-time low.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: We now have them back to an all-time high and we are
doing very well, thank you very much, without you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You talk about consistency. I wonder if the Premier could tell us, then, if
your party, your members, have come into this House twice since this session has
started and asked for the unanimous support of everybody here, and received it,
with regard to 5 Wing Goose Bay, with regard to the Atlantic Accord? Your
members sponsored it. You asked us in Private Members' Day here. We debated it
and unanimously agreed to it.
Mr. Premier, there is no talk about what wagon you want to hitch to when you
want that, and your party members want that. Yet, we ask you for this very
important resolution that could handcuff, tie down and commit every federal
member, and you are refusing to do what is in the best interest of the people of
this Province.
Can you give some answer other than a wishy-washy response?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, next week, a week from today, is Private Members' Day, and
that resolution can be tabled and debated at that particular point in time. That
is your right, that is your prerogative, and we will participate in that debate;
however, I had a bad experience. I was part of an all-party committee that went
to Ottawa on the fishery. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi was there as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The former Premier actually headed that committee at
that particular point in time. It was a bad experience, because we were in a
room before and we agreed on a united position as to how we were going to
present to the federal Minister of Fisheries. What did the hon. gentleman
opposite do when he walked into the room? The Member for The Straits & White
Bay North was there. Do you know what he did? He caved in. He completely
undermined our position. He destroyed the entire mission. He destroyed the
mandate of the all-party committee, and it was all over as soon as he opened his
mouth. That is why I will not be part of any all-party exercise with the hon.
gentleman opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If you want to talk about destroying credibility, let's talk about the
long-term care facility in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. The Premier
has stated on many occasions in Corner Brook that the long-term care facility
for Corner Brook will be publicly built, publicly funded, and be completed and
operational in this four-year mandate. There was $300,000 allocated in the
previous budget, and I ask the minister: What is the purpose of these funds and
has the Western Health Care Corporation been notified of these funds?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, there was $300,000 approved in the Budget for the long-term care
facility, and the purpose of the money is to commence planning for that
facility. It will cover site selection. It will also cover some preliminary
planning work. In addition, to the second question from the hon. member, yes,
the Western Health Care Corporation has been informed that the $300,000 is in
the Budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister has just stated, and from her answer, there are no funds
there for the archeological design nor the blueprint -
AN HON. MEMBER: Architectural.
MR. JOYCE: - architectural design, or the blueprint of this project.
MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).
MR. JOYCE: I say to the Member for Trinity North -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: - this is a serious matter for Corner Brook, for the Member
for Humber West and the Member for Humber East, so if you have any jokes to say,
please say them outside. It is very serious. There are twenty-four people in
acute care beds -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members for their co-operation. The Chair recognizes the hon. the
Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Estimates given, even by the members of the Western Health Care Corporation,
Madam Minister, is that it will take up to a year-and-a-half to complete this
design, with consultation between the stakeholders, the Department of Health and
the Western Health Care Corporation. With the next budget a year-and-a-half
away, and a year-and-a-half to have this design, will the minister now stand in
this House and state that the project cannot be completed in his one and only
mandate that the Premier has promised for the people out in Humber West and the
Corner Brook region?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have had quite a lot of involvement with regard to planning,
and planning for different types of facilities within government. A facility of
this nature will take several years, and it is usually budgeted for year by year
over one, two or three years. This year the $300,000, as I indicated, will be
for planning, will be for initial site identification selection and preliminary
planning, and I would anticipate that the next phase of the project will be
considered during the next budgetary process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: On a final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bay of
Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: So, the minister cannot commit the Premier's commitment of
having this built in the four-year mandate which he promised out in Corner
Brook. Thank you.
The next question, Minister: Can you confirm if there is any engineering firm
that has been selected for this project? If so, who is the company?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When we identify the consultant, I will inform the hon. House.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is for the Minister of Education.
I noticed in the ministerial report by the Minister of Natural Resources, he
made references to training opportunities for Voisey's Bay in Labrador. I want
to ask the Minister of Education: What is his and his department's
responsibility, and what is their commitment to making sure that training for
Voisey's Bay takes place at training facilities in Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As part of the College of the North Atlantic, of course, we have two campuses
in Labrador. We have a campus in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area that presently
has an enrollment of over 600 students, and, of course, the Labrador West campus
where the hon. member would be familiar with the enrollment, we have an
enrollment of just under 300 students, and, of course, the Centre of Excellence
in Labrador West that deals with mining and other related areas.
I can say to the hon. member, that there is a commitment by this government
to the residents of Labrador to ensure that the residents of Labrador will find
a place for their educational purposes within Labrador, when and where possible.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the minister: Given that commitment that he just stated, can
the minister tell me why there are journey person construction electricians who
are going to be trained to become industrial electricians, so that they can work
when the plant goes into operation at Voisey's Bay The facilities in Labrador
West are quite adequate to provide that type of training. I wonder if the
minister can tell me why that training is scheduled to take place in Seal Cove?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, that very situation has been brought to my
attention and our officials within the Department of Education have been
speaking with the main administration of the College of the North Atlantic, with
officials in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, with college officials in Labrador West,
and also with the funding agency that is involved. It is our hope that that
particular matter can be resolved and the eight industrial electricians who are
impacted will, in fact, not have to come to Conception Bay South but will, in
fact, have their training and the furtherance of their education in Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, for the Minister of Education. We have heard a lot of talk on
government's position on things that happen in this Province, about being
outside the overpass. Colleges in Labrador, from time to time, in order to
compete with existing Colleges of the North Atlantic or other public training
institutions within our Province, may have to compete from time to time with
them.
Would the minister undertake to make a commitment to, as far as possible,
make the colleges up and ready if they have to purchase additional equipment, to
make sure that they are able to compete with colleges that may be further
advanced because of historic reasons?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we have a very sound public college system
that addresses and meets the needs of all of the residents and all of the
students throughout all of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I would say, in this particular case, the residents of Labrador,
as indicated, have found a very appropriate place for the furtherance of their
post-secondary education in both communities in Labrador, namely Happy
Valley-Goose Bay and in Labrador West.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, in The Telegram yesterday the Premier credited himself,
as he is apt to do, with prompting the EU to back Canada's demand to allow
Canadian inspectors to board Portuguese vessels that were caught illegally
fishing on the Grand Banks. In light of the fact that this request has now
fallen on deaf ears and the Portuguese government will not allow our inspectors
to board these vessels in Portugal, will the Premier now admit that diplomacy is
not the answer, as it has never been with regard to this issue? Will he now push
Ottawa for more decisive actions on this issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As indicated in my previous answers to questions, diplomacy is worth trying.
We tried that, of course, with Ottawa and it seems to be working very, very
well. That is an approach, as well, that we have tried with our European friends
and hopeful trading partners in the future.
I must say, I was extremely disappointed when it, in fact, did not happen.
However, it was not because of the exercise that I went through with the
officials of the EU. I encouraged them to do it. They wrote a letter and, of
course, as the former minister clearly understands, it is a prerogative of the
country to say no, and they, in fact, said no.
We will be taking further initiatives. I did indicate in the strongest terms
that we were resolved in this issue, that if they were not able to be effective
in their own jurisdiction that we would, in fact, take action ourselves. I can
assure him, he can rest assured that I, in fact, spoke with the Prime Minister
within the last thirty-six hours on that very issue. I spoke with him directly
on that very issue. I have an assurance from the Prime Minister that he is going
to take it even further. Yes, if diplomacy has not worked - but I do honestly
feel that it is worth a try because the confrontational attitude of himself, as
a former minister, and of his former leader as a Premier, obviously -
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
I ask the Premier now to finish his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
- the confrontational attitude has not, in fact, worked.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Premier that we have been using diplomacy, or the Canadian
government has been using diplomacy since 1977, when the 200-mile limit was
instituted originally and that has gotten us nowhere. In fact, the situation
gets worse.
Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In a
ministerial statement in the House on March 25 the minister stated that the
Canadian government has tools other than custodial management available to
improve management of straddling fish stocks. He went on to say that should a
multilateral approach fail, that the Newfoundland and Labrador Government would
continue to press Canada to pursue other alternatives.
In light of what has happened with these Portuguese vessels in recent weeks,
I believe the minister knows - I believe he said it yesterday - that custodial
management is really the only option. I ask the minister, when will he and his
leader aggressively pursue this option with the federal government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is aware, and as he has indicated
here, we have said that it is our understanding with the Canadian ratification
of the Law of the Sea and the European Union -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if you could gag some people on the other side.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We only have about another forty seconds left. The hon. minister has the
floor.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I was attempting to answer the question -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the minister has not completed his answer. I ask him now to do so.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition
does not see the seriousness of the question that his counterpart from
Twillingate & Fogo just asked.
Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer by saying this. We were of the opinion,
based on suggestions by representatives who were engaged in discussions with the
Law of the Sea, that Canada's ratification of the Law of the Sea and the
United Nations Fisheries Agreement ratification by the European Union may
present us with some tools similar to what we would like to see under custodial
management, and we suggested that we should attempt that.
Mr. Speaker, I have said consistently - as this government and as the
previous government has suggested - that should these multilateral approaches
fail Canada must move expeditiously down the road towards imposing custodial
management.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: Today being Wednesday, Private Member's Day, I wonder if
we could just run down through the list of routine proceedings.
We have: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees; Notices of
Motions; Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given. We will not have
any time for Petitions. We will call the Orders of the Day.
I do believe we are debating a resolution put forward by the hon. Member for
Bonavista South. The Chair calls on the hon. member to introduce his resolution.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am certainly glad today to rise and present a private member's resolution
as it pertains to the upgrading and reconstruction of roads in this Province and
calling on our federal government, our central government, to provide funding in
order to carry out some of those maintenance programs.
Mr. Speaker, I will read the resolution. The resolution states:
WHEREAS the challenge of constructing and maintaining transportation
infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador is enormous, given our difficult
terrain and our relatively small population dispersed over a large area; and
WHEREAS much of this Province's existing transportation infrastructure has
deteriorated in recent years as a consequence of insufficient funding; and
WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada establishes the principle of equalization
which directs governments in Canada to reduce the disparity of opportunities
associated with the relatively poor fiscal capacity of a province; and
with this and other provinces whereby it has funded or cost-shared valuable
infrastructure work; and
WHEREAS the 1988 fifteen-year Newfoundland and Labrador Transportation
Initiative (also known as the Roads for Rail Agreement) has expired, leaving the
Province with significantly diminished funding in the face of an undiminished
need; and
WHEREAS proper transportation infrastructure is required to attract and
complement investments that will create jobs and opportunities in our
communities;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this Hon. House call upon the Government of
Canada to enter into a comprehensive transportation infrastructure agreement
with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that there are six WHEREASs in this
particular private member's resolution. I am sure that every member here in
this House can stand for a whole day and talk about each one of those individual
WHEREASs as it relates to their own district. There is not one member sitting in
this House of Assembly today, I am certain, who cannot relate to this particular
private member's resolution and cannot relate some of the roads in their own
district, as well as the major highway, the Trans-Canada Highway, that they have
to travel over for the most part, especially for rural members, to get to and
from their district.
Mr. Speaker, this Province is faced with a huge deficit, has been put forward
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. It is certainly not
within the ability of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to go
out and provide the funding that is needed in order to bring our major highways
and our trunk roads and our secondary roads up to an acceptable standard.
This particular year we have seen an extra $7 million put forward by the
present government, by the Minister of Transportation and Works, to increase to
a total of $30 million for major upgrades to the roads in Newfoundland. That is
not counting what is happening in the Labrador Highway, but only for upgrading,
maintaining and reconstruction of roads in this Province.
While it is pretty well one-third more funding than we received last year,
Mr. Speaker, it falls far short of what is needed in order to look after the
up-keeping and maintenance of our roads. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding
that there is only one program which is available right now that is being
cost-shared by the federal government. It is a federal-provincial 50-50
cost-shared program known as the Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program. This
particular program is going to be looking after some major reconstruction and
upgrading of the Trans-Canada Highway between Chance Cove and Goobies this year,
some forty-five kilometres. God knows, the people who are travelling that
section of highway on a regular basis knows full well of the need to upgrade
that
section of highway and make it safe, because it is the Trans-Canada
Highway.
Mr. Speaker, I called over to the Department of Transportation and Works
earlier this morning and I was given some facts as it relates to the
responsibility of the Department of Transportation and Works as it relates to
the highways in this Province. I was informed that there are some 8,943
kilometres of road in the inventory of Transportation and Works; some 8,943
kilometres. Out of those 8,943 kilometres, 6,995 kilometres is paved road. That
is roads that people have been fortunate enough to see some pavement on. Mr.
Speaker, out of the 8,943 kilometres, there are1,500 kilometres of gravel road,
secondary gravel roads.
There are places in this Province today, there are communities in this
Province, and there are secondary roads that have never, ever seen an asphalt
spreader. There are places in this Province today where people still cannot put
their windows up in the summertime, or housewives cannot hang their clothes on
the line on a Monday morning because of the conditions of the highway through
the community, or the roadway through the community.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the cost of upgrading some of those major trunk
roads, and upgrading and paving of some of those major trunk roads, you will
find that with the prices that we are experiencing here in this Province today,
the cost is something like $150,000 to $200,000 per kilometre. If you are going
to go out and pave Route 230 today going to Bonavista, the major trunk road,
which today sees - if you drive down that road you will see the speed limit
reduced to 20 kilometres an hour. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker! This is the major
trunk road going to the tip of the Bonavista Peninsula. This is the major road
going down to service the crab plant in Bonavista, the shrimp plant in Port
Union, and all other activities where we are trying to build a tourist trade and
where we are trying to build on some infrastructure that we have put there over
the years. We see the speed limit on that particular road, the main road to
Bonavista, reduced to 20 kilometres an hour over certain sections of that road.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at it again, upgrading and paving of trunk roads. I
refer to Route 230, which is the one that I know best. If we are going to go and
put out a tender today in order to have some work done on this particular road
we can expect a tender to come back for something like $150,000 to $200,000 per
kilometre; $150,000 to $200,000 per kilometre. When you look at the amount of
money that we have allocated this year, it would take us - if we looked at just
this
section of road, Mr. Speaker, what we have done is the major trunk roads -
approximately twenty-eight years to bring it up to an acceptable standard that
would be acceptable in other parts of this country.
Mr. Speaker, if we were to look at the upgrading and paving of local roads,
it would cost us in the vicinity of $80,000 to $100,000 per kilometre. You might
say: What is the difference? Mr. Speaker, most people would know that on a major
trunk road you see two layers of asphalt put down because of the amount of
traffic that uses that particular road, verses a secondary road where you would
see one layer, one lift of asphalt put down. So, that is the difference in the
cost.
The department has also indicated, Mr. Speaker, that if they were to bring
their inventory up to a state of good repair, up to a state of acceptable
repair, it would cost something like $840 million. So, it is not hard to figure
out. You do not have to be a math wizard. When you look at the cost of $840
million, and if you look at the amount of money that we have put forward this
year into road reconstruction and upgrading here in this Province, you will see
that if we were going to continue to put forward $30 million a year, and it
would cost $840 million to bring our roads up to an acceptable standard for
2004, then it would, like I said, take us twenty-eight years to realize what
other people in other provinces accept as an acceptable standard. So, I do not
have to tell anybody what would happen to other roads in this Province while
that twenty-eight years were being taken into consideration for some of our
roads.
Mr. Speaker, if anybody drives the Trans-Canada Highway they would know full
well if they travelled behind some of the transport trucks - I always look at
some of those - we used to call them eighteen-wheelers but they have many more
wheels than that these days. But if you are going to look at the bad sections of
highway, all you have to do is follow one of those big transport trucks because
they know the road very well. I went out the other day, and my wife was with me
in the car, and she said: That fellow in front of you driving that big truck,
there must be something wrong with him. Mr. Speaker, he was driving with one set
of tires in the center on the white line, and the other set of tires out on the
shoulder of the road all the way out; all the way from Chance Cove out to
Goobies. It was not hard to understand why the truck driver was driving in such
a manner because that was probably the best part of the road where he could get
the goods that he was delivering, to the place that he was delivering them to,
in a state that he could realize, I guess, the cost for delivering them. The
highway is in a deplorable condition.
There has probably been no other member who has stood here on petitions
anymore than I have, since I have been elected here in May, 1993. It is a major
problem in my district, but I fully realize, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect
to members opposite when they were in government, that it is certainly beyond
the capacity of this Province to look after the road needs and the highway needs
without negotiating some form of a comprehensive agreement with the central
government.
Mr. Speaker, back in 1988, everybody is familiar with the terms of the Roads
for Rail Agreement. That is what it was deemed to be. At that particular time,
we decided that we were going to give up the right to a railway. In order to do
that, we accepted something in the tune of $800 million from the federal
government. Mr. Speaker, $740 million was directed to roads in the Province and
there was something like a total of $60 million that was directed to the towns
of Bishop's Falls and Port aux Basques. They received funding to the tune of
$60 million. Mr. Speaker, at that particular time, in 1988, the $800 million
would have been perceived as an amount of money that would look after all our
needs as it relates to road transportation and to upgrade and maintain roads in
this Province. There has been some good work done, no doubt about it. We can all
argue whether this particular road, or another particular road, needed to be
upgraded to the extent that it was.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak again about the
section of road that I know
best, and that is Route 230. Back in 1988 there was $13 million allocated for
Route 230 on the Bonavista Peninsula. The Northern Peninsula Highway was
allotted $5 million. The Bay d'Espoir Highway was allotted $12 million. The
Burin Peninsula Highway $17 million, and the Baie Verte Highway allotted $6
million.
Out of those five major highways that I just identified, not one of them has
been brought up to a standard that is acceptable today in 2003. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, the Bonavista Highway, Route 230, the Discovery Highway, still needs
something like twenty-two kilometres to be upgraded and brought up to an
acceptable standard. That twenty-two kilometres translates into about another
$6.5 million. So, in essence, there was only one-third of enough money that was
identified to bring Route 230 up to that acceptable standard.
With the $30 million that we have identified for all of the Province of
Newfoundland - and that is not considering over in excess of $100 million that
is needed for the third phase of the Labrador Highway. I am just talking about
on the Province now. I am not touching on the over $100 million that is needed
for the Trans-Labrador Highway, the third phase. Over half of that would be used
in my district and we would still be experiencing gravel roads. We would still
have a problem with one of the major highways leading into Bonavista, Catalina,
Port Union and that particular area.
Last year I brought forward the concern when Route 235 - which I refer to as
the scenic route going down the Bonavista Highway. You get to a place known as
Princeton, Southern Bay area, and you come to an intersection. You have a
choice. You can go the scenic route, which is down through the communities of
Plate Cove East, Plate Cove West, Southern Bay, Summerville, Upper, Middle and
Lower Amherst Cove, King's Cove, into Bonavista, or you can go down Route 230,
which is the Discovery Trail, Mr. Speaker. What people face when they get to
Lethbridge, because the road has been maintained - well, except for about eight
kilometres, which is probably the worst
section of the whole highway in that
particular area - the remainder of the road down as far as Port Rexton has been
upgraded to a fairly safe and acceptable standard from Lethbridge to Port
Rexton. The other parts of the highway have deteriorated to such an extent that
we now see tourists coming as far as Lethbridge and, after they experience the
road, the conditions of the road from the Cabot highway down to Lethbridge, it
is not uncommon from them to stop at one of the service stations there, the
Tourist Chalet or a service station, and the first inquiry they have is: What is
the road like from here down to Bonavista? What is the road like from here down
to King's Cove?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I have a few minutes to
conclude at the end. I know that there are a lot of other people who want to
take
part in this discussion, so I will certainly take my seat now and allow
others to participate. I look forward to closing the debate later in the day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few minutes to make
some comments with respect to the private member's motion and to indicate that
clearly the intent of the members of the Official Opposition is to vote in
favour of the private member's motion, and congratulate the Member for
Bonavista South for introducing it.
What I am puzzled by, though, Mr. Speaker, is how it fits in the context of
the Premier's performance, if I might call it that, during Question Period
today, and his representation of how insignificant he, as the Premier, feels it
is to have any support from the Opposition with respect to issues that the
government is dealing with.
As a matter of fact, during answers to questions today from my colleague from
Burgeo & LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader, asking whether or not the
Premier might like to have a fuller debate than just roads - this is important,
this is a federal contribution to roadwork in Newfoundland and Labrador, that we
fully support. The question put to the Premier just half an hour or so ago, Mr.
Speaker, was whether or not he might like to incorporate it in another motion in
the name of the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile that says:
Whereas there is an
impending federal election and there are many issues, why would we not look at
the issue of the principle beneficiary for offshore resources? Why would we not
look at the issue of equalization? Why would we not look at the issue of
post-secondary funding? Why would we not look at the issue of the need for
improvement in the EI system? Why not look at the issue of custodial management?
Why not look at joint management of the fishery? Why not look at federal
involvement in the Lower Churchill? Of course, he said, why not roll roadwork
right into this, and do a more comprehensive motion that would show all-party
support and then we would take that motion, which would be passed by the
Legislature, and forward it to all the candidates in the pending federal
election to put them on the record - the candidates and their federal leaders -
as to how they feel about these issues of importance to Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I am amazed, Mr. Speaker, by the response and reaction of the Premier, who
said: No, thank you, we are not dealing with any of that. We will do it
ourselves. As a matter of fact, I think his exact phrase was: We will do it
without you. We will do it without you, is what he said, Mr. Speaker. The ego
and the arrogance in that particular comment now has me puzzled. It is obvious,
very obvious, that the Member for Bonavista South did not check with the Premier
when he asked to have this motion put on the Order Paper, because this says: Let's
members of the Legislature - to vote and show that it is not just the
government, it is not just the Premier, it is not just the party in power, but
all the members, the Official Opposition and the Opposition members who are
members of the NDP Party, that we all support the notion that we should have
Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what this motion is asking us to do.
The Member for Bonavista South is signalling that he feels it is important
that the whole Parliament here, that every one of the members of the
Legislature, endorse this. Meanwhile, half an hour ago, when we asked if the
Premier would like our support for other issues as well, he said: No, thanks. I
will do it myself. I will do it on my own. I do not want any of you fellows
involved in this.
The contradiction that has me puzzled even further, because three of the
items that were in the motion referred to by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile
have already been dealt with in this House by private members' motions brought
by members of the government side. As a matter of fact, two of them, Mr.
Speaker, were dealt with in the Legislature in a private member's motion that
stood in the name of the Premier himself.
The Premier himself, right after the Budget in which health care initiatives
were cancelled, 4,000 layoffs were announced, wage freezes and all of that bad
news, in order to deflect from that, he brought in a private member's motion
himself, in his own name, moved by the hon. the Premier, to ask that the House
obligation under the Atlantic Accord, and be it further resolved that we allow
Newfoundland and Labrador to receive 100 per cent of the provincial revenues
from oil and gas.
He came in here, as the Premier, and asked to present a private member's
motion. That day, he said it was important that the message be that everybody in
the House be seen to be supporting it. Today, because the Member for Burgeo
& LaPoile presented that as part of his own motion, because that is in there
- 100 per cent of revenues for the offshore, 8.5 per cent for Hibernia, the
ownership of that - the Premier today, because we suggested it instead of him,
contradicted himself completely and said: No, thank you. We do not want any
all-party committees. We do not want your support. We are going to do it without
you. I am the Premier. I will do this by myself.
Mr. Speaker, I am really, absolutely, amazed by the contradiction in terms of
the Premier, himself, who put a motion on the Order Paper as a private member,
had to get consent of the House in order to do it because it was contrary to the
rules. We agreed to the debate. We voted for it because he told us that day,
through his Minister of Natural Resources who actually led the debate, that it
just a Progressive Conservative request. This was supported by all members and
all parties in Newfoundland and Labrador.
When asked and offered an opportunity to do the same thing today, he said:
No, thank you. I will do it by myself. I do not want you guys. I don't plan to
have you involved. I am going to do it by myself. The old one-man show will deal
with this, thank you very much.
Meanwhile, the Member for Bonavista South, presenting the motion, is back
again half an hour later, saying: It is important that all members of the House
be seen to be asking for a roads agreement, when the Premier stood up less than
half an hour ago and said: I do not need any of you people supporting me. I will
do this by myself, thank you very much. So, that leaves us wondering whether or
not the Member for Bonavista South even checked with the Premier. I am sure now
that the Premier is up there saying, maybe: I hope they don't vote for this,
because I don't want that crowd involved in it anyway. I am going to do this
all by myself.
If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, why didn't you just have a little meeting
in the caucus and deal with this? The Premier has stated publicly for the people
of the Province that he wants no involvement from anybody else, does not plan
have it and, by the way, the evidence proves from the recent trip to Europe that
is exactly how he will operate. Because one other one was brought forward by the
Member for Lake Melville, as a private member's motion, brought to this House,
saying he wanted everybody in the Legislature to support a request to the
Labrador - brought by a member of the government, the Parliamentary Secretary
for Labrador Affairs - and he asked the House, just like the Member for
Bonavista South is asking today, he said: It was an important message if it is
seen that the Liberals are for this and that the NDP are for this and we are all
for this, because when we go to Ottawa we would like to be able to tell them
that everybody here is for this.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that day the government, through the House
Leader, agreed to an amendment. We proposed an amendment saying, if you want our
support, let's formalize an all-party committee about 5 Wing Goose Bay; and
the Government House Leader, speaking for the government that day because the
Premier was not in the House at that point in time, said: Yes, that is a good
idea.
Obviously, no one had checked with the Premier, because the Premier did not
want an all-party committee and he proved it when he went to Europe. He went to
Europe about 5 Wing Goose Bay. He had a motion passed in the House by the
Parliamentary Secretary who accompanied him. The motion said we should go and
fight for 5 Wing Goose Bay in Canada and elsewhere in the world, wherever it
takes, to make sure we ensure its future, and we should guarantee that they know
it is supported by everybody in the House, by having an All-Party Committee.
Guess how many members of the All-Party Committee went to Europe? Nobody. The
Premier, then, ignoring the motion, did what he said today. He said: I will do
it without you. Not only did he do it without us, in reference to 5 Wing Goose
Bay, Mr. Speaker, he did it without the federal Member for Labrador, who, by the
way, had arranged the first meeting of the Premier with the Prime Minister about
5 Wing Goose Bay. The Premier applauded Mr. O'Brien, the MP for Labrador, for
all the work he did in Ottawa, in arranging all the meetings with the Department
of National Defense, arranging for everybody to get to see everyone that they
needed to see, and making sure that the Prime Minister agreed to see the
delegation, personally, about 5 Wing Goose Bay.
What is the evidence? Mr. O'Brien, the MP for Labrador, who did all this
and was praised by the Premier - not only does the Premier want to do it without
us, he wants to do it without Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien is in the local media
in Labrador saying, I didn't want to beg for an invitation, but it would have
been nice if the Premier had called me and said: I am going to Europe. Do you
think you would like to come along? He said, I found out he was in Europe
through the media; the man who arranged all the meeting, made sure he got to see
the Prime Minister, kept the agenda alive, is acknowledged in Labrador, by the
local people, to probably know more about the base and the issues than anybody
else up there, including the Minister for Labrador Affairs, including the
Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Lake Melville. They acknowledge in
Labrador that the MP for Labrador knows more about 5 Wing Goose Bay than
anybody.
Mr. Speaker, here you are - today we say to the Premier in Question Period:
Let's incorporate the motion for the Member for Bonavista South which we agree
with, a roads deal with Ottawa participating. Let's put it in with the rest of
it. Let's put it in with 5 Wing Goose Bay, let's put it in with the
offshore. We have already voted on both those by the way. Nothing new. Maybe the
Premier did know that these people over here broke ranks with him and voted for
that. He doesn't pay a lot of attention to what happens in the Legislature. He
acknowledged that when he came back on Monday and didn't know that there was a
motion presented while he was gone, looking at trying to have an All-Party
Committee approach the federal candidate to make sure that they were going to
stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Today, when answering questions about it he said: I don't want any help
from you people over there when it comes to those issues. When I deal with the
words.
Mr. Speaker, all I can tell you is, despite that absolute contradiction by
the Premier which doesn't surprise me, because he contradicts himself time and
time and time again, we will support the motion from the Member for Bonavista
South, because we think it is important, even if the Premier doesn't think it
is a bit important. He thinks the only thing that is important in Ottawa and in
Europe is what he says. If he says it as the Premier then that is going to make
something happen, Sir.
He came back and said to the media that we even got permission for the
Canadian Fisheries Officers to board the ship in Portugal because I raised it at
the EU meeting, and embarrassed himself today by having to say: I have to admit
that my attempt at diplomacy was a failure.
Well, he did not characterize it as a failure yesterday to the media, Mr.
Speaker. He was out bragging about it, trying to suggest that one action in
itself justified the junket to Europe, the junket to Europe with the one-man
show, Mr. Speaker.
Now, despite all of that, despite my problem with the contradictions by the
Premier, we will support this motion because we believe the Member for Bonavista
South is on to a good issue. It is a proper issue, even though the Premier does
not think it is important. We still believe it is important in Ottawa for a
leader in this Province to be able to say - and, by the way, I am not only
saying this on behalf of the Conservatives, I can tell you, because I have a
vote from the Legislature that the Liberal Opposition supports it, and that the
NDP party supports it. That makes it easier, by the way, for the Government of
Canada to agree, if they understand that it is unanimous in Newfoundland and
Labrador, despite the fact that the Premier, in his high-handed, arrogant way
would say: I will do it without you.
If we were to get childish about it, Mr. Speaker, then we would say: We are
going to vote against this because the Premier does not want our support. That
is what he said today. Before the Member for Bonavista South stood, the Premier
was after saying: We do not want your support on these issues.
I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, despite the Premier and his ego, and his
arrogance, and his attitude, we will support the Member for Bonavista South. We
will support this issue because it is important to some people, some place, even
though it may not be important to the Premier himself. He has disgraced himself,
in my view, Mr. Speaker, in terms of his performance here again today, but it
will not get in our way of doing the right thing, which is to support the motion
because it is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. Even though the
almighty one-man show does not think it is important, we know it is and we will
support the motion from the Member for Bonavista South.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Placentia & St.
Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am certainly pleased today to stand and make some comments on the private
member's resolution put forward by my hon. colleague from Bonavista South. I
certainly feel that it is a very important issue to all parts of Newfoundland
and Labrador, all the regions of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly in my
own District of Placentia & St. Mary's, which I will take a few moments
later to make a few comments on. I certainly sat and listened attentively to the
Leader of the Opposition, and to characterize anything here in regard to being
political, I think it would come, certainly, from the other side of the House in
its full course today.
This is a very important issue for members on this side of the House. As most
people know, who have been here for a number of years, Private Members' Day is
a day that is reserved for members in the Opposition and members of the NDP and
for people who are not part of the Cabinet on this side of the House to bring
forward concerns that they have of a provincial nature, or concerns that they
have of a district nature, under a private member's resolution. It is a day
for members to bring forward concerns, and the concern that has been brought
forward and the issue that has been brought forward by the Member for Bonavista
South is not a new issue.
I have been here in the House since 1993 and the Member for Bonavista South,
like myself and many others, have presented many, many petitions on behalf of
the people in their districts in regard to roadwork, have presented several
times, and have raised in the House private member's resolutions to the effect
that this one is today. All these efforts have been, in some cases, I guess,
felt to be futile for the simple reason that we still have not gotten a
federal-provincial agreement to address the road concerns that are in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want to go back a number of years now, if I could, to when there was a
former Administration in power in this Province and a former Administration in
power in Ottawa at the time, and they reached agreements on several types of
road infrastructure agreements, Mr. Speaker, including the Roads for Rail
Agreement, which saw multi-million dollars pumped into roads in this Province. I
think it was up around the $800 million mark. Then we had the Trunk Roads
Agreement, Mr. Speaker. We have had major agreements in relation to improvements
to the Trans-Canada Highway, that have been spent and, in most cases now, are
expired.
These agreements were signed by somebody we had in Ottawa at the time who
proved to be, I believe, a great friend of Newfoundland and Labrador in many
ways, but indeed someone I knew on a personal basis, the hon. John Crosbie at
the time, who was a member of the Brian Mulroney government, and signed several
road agreements that would see some major improvements to the road
infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Just last year, in the construction season of 2003, we have seen the last of
those dollars that were signed way back when, way back in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, that were signed with the federal and provincial governments at the
time, and we were still spending that money up until last year.
I think an important thing to point out here today, Mr. Speaker, if I could,
is the failure of the former Administration in this Province to work out a roads
infrastructure agreement with the government in Ottawa of the day, who wore the
same political stripe as the members opposite, I might add. They failed to work
out a new roads infrastructure agreement. That in itself, I think, speaks
volumes of the relationship that the former Administration had with the
Chrtien government at the time, Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa. I think, because of
that negative relationship that they had, we are suffering in this Province
today. The people who are travelling the roads and the highways in this Province
today are suffering because of the fact that we could not work out a new roads
infrastructure agreement with Ottawa.
I remember back - I am not sure exactly when it was, Mr. Speaker, but the
Opposition Leader just referenced some comments that were made by the MP for
Labrador, and I remember the MP for Labrador making some points in relation to a
$1 billion proposal. We are not talking thousands of dollars, like the former
Premier used to say. We are not talking tens of thousands. We are not talking
hundreds of thousands. We are talking a $1 billion roads infrastructure
agreement. The former Administration, under the leadership, at the time, of the
Minster of what was called then the Department of Works, Services and
Transportation, the hon. Mr. Barrett, went off to Ottawa with a proposal to look
for the $1 billion. The MP for Labrador said, at the time, that he had a better
proposal - if memory serves me correct and I stand to be corrected but I am
pretty sure I am correct - from the community of Pinsent's Arm in his district
in relation to roadwork than what the minister of the day, the hon. Mr. Barrett,
had when he went to Ottawa to look for $1 billion. It was a power point
presentation that failed to convince the people in Ottawa of the necessity of
roadwork in this Province; that failed to convince the people in Ottawa of the
necessity of coming on board and improving the infrastructure in this Province;
that failed to convince the people in Ottawa that this Province deserved to have
a roads infrastructure agreement that would meet the needs and meet the concerns
of the people of this Province. So, there is where the failure lay at that time.
In this private member's resolution today, I believe that the Member for
Bonavista South is putting forward an opportunity here once again, and I guess
it is all finished up. You have several
WHEREAS, but, THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED
comprehensive transportation infrastructure agreement with the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
As I said, anybody who drives in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and my
district is 100 per cent rural, Mr. Speaker, anybody who has to operate in those
districts, knows full well the need for the roads infrastructure agreement. I
certainly want to lend my support to this private member's resolution today
and offer anything we can to help in formulating this infrastructure agreement
with Ottawa, that we are on side in doing that.
I just want to take a moment, if I could, to talk about my own District of
Placentia & St. Mary's, and certainly the need for road infrastructure
work in that district. Hopefully, if we are successful enough in working out an
agreement with Ottawa, that will leave some money over to the side to be able to
work at some of the roads that are off the Trans-Canada.
As a matter of fact, we just did the Department of Transportation and Works
this morning with the Estimates, and it was brought to light at that Estimates
meeting this morning, Mr. Speaker, that -
MS JONES: (Inaudible).
MR. MANNING: Well, we worked on them, I say to the Member for
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and we certainly wanted to leave the opportunity
for anybody to ask questions. That is why we are working on rescheduling a
further meeting of the Department of Transportation and Works.
In that meeting this morning, Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out by the deputy
minister, I believe, that when the federal government puts money on the table to
address road work in the Province, they want to put that money where possible -
as much as possible, I should say - into the Trans-Canada Highway. That is their
focus, Mr. Speaker. I realize how important the Trans-Canada Highway is to the
movement of goods and services across our Province and certainly for the
different industries that we have and the movement of people back and forth
across the Province, but we have, as the Member for Bonavista South touched on
earlier, thousands of kilometres of roads that are off the Trans-Canada in this
Province that need attention. Hopefully, by working out an agreement with
Ottawa, we can get them to address some of the concerns that we have in rural
parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Hopefully, through the private member's
resolution being put forward today, we can get to address some of that.
I want to get back, if I could, to the District of Placentia & St. Mary's,
Mr. Speaker. Over the past couple of days I had the opportunity to bring forward
here to the House several petitions that have been sent to me to present on
behalf of the people I represent in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's
in regard to road work and the need for road work in the district. I am very
pleased to present those petitions and very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to highlight
the concerns of the people in my district as it relates to road work.
Last Wednesday, as a matter of fact a week ago today, I had the opportunity,
Mr. Speaker, to take the present Minister of Transportation and Works throughout
the District of Placentia & St. Mary's and highlight to him and show him
firsthand the concerns that people have out there and the issues that I have
raised with him back in January of this year when we presented the priorities
for our districts to the minister for this year's budget considerations. We
had the opportunity to travel throughout the district. We travelled first into
the St. Mary's Bay portion of my district. Then I took the minister down to
the community of Admiral's Beach and through O'Donnells and St. Joseph's
and looked at road conditions in that area. We then travelled on down into St.
Mary's Bay. We even had the opportunity to visit the small community of Mall
Bay, which is now serviced by a gravel road about eight kilometres long, where
they ran into some major problems with washouts on two of the steep hills that
they have there. We had the opportunity to go down and visit Mall Bay.
Then we followed down into St. Mary's Bay, and throughout the communities
of St. Mary's Bay. Then we came back to the Town of Riverhead. We had a public
meeting in the Town of Riverhead which was attended by several people; almost up
to 100 people. Representatives from all the different outlining communities in
St. Mary's Bay. We had an opportunity to discuss the concerns and the people -
more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the people of the district had an opportunity to
forward their concerns to the minister, in person, there at that case.
We then travelled on from Riverhead out to the Cape Shore area of my
district. We went down to Point Lance where there is an absolute deplorable road
condition, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the community and the Town of Point
Lance, and through the communities of Branch. We travelled, at that time,
through North Harbour, Colinet area, and down through the Town of Mount Carmel.
We had the opportunity to visit all of that area and certainly see some of the
deplorable road conditions that are in that area.
We had the opportunity then, Mr. Speaker, to travel on into the Town of
Placentia and that area of my district. We finished up with a meeting at the
Town Council of Placentia and had an opportunity to discuss, not only road
conditions but, indeed, several other concerns they have, especially the one
related to the lift bridge in Placentia and the highway depot in Placentia, and
some changes which were about to happen in that regard. We had an opportunity to
sit down and discuss those with the Town Council of Placentia.
I want to take the opportunity today to thank the Minister of Transportation
and Works for taking the day to come out to the district. At least when I
discuss the issues with him now, when petitions come forward to the House, to me
as a member of the House, or when we have the opportunity to have correspondence
with somebody out in the district in relation to road work, the minister is
fully aware, firsthand, of what we are talking about. I certainly want to thank
the minister for that today.
Mr. Speaker, also there is a washout down through the communities of Ship
Harbour in my district. That has gone to tender now and will hopefully be
addressed in the next little while.
That is just my district. I want to take the opportunity - I went through one
end of my district to the other, Mr. Speaker, back a little while ago now, and
measured off areas of my district that needed work. In my district alone I could
use 100 kilometers of recapping, just to address it. This is not work that we do
when we are passing by. This is work that is a necessity in my district. That is
just my district, 100 kilometers. That just goes to show - based on the figures
that I have been told - that work of 100 kilometers could cost anywhere between
$8 million to $10 million to do. We were lucky this year that we had the
opportunity to increase the Provincial Roads Program by $7 million, but it
brings up the total Provincial Roads Program to $30 million.
Now, to look at it in perspective, we have my District of Placentia & St.
Mary's that could use $8 million to $10 million, but we have an entire
Provincial Roads Program that consists of $30 million. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I
know in my district all of the concerns and issues that people have out there
are not going to be addressed this construction season, and neither, I guess, is
it going to happen in many other districts throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
I guess that is what makes this resolution more important today, to ensure that
the message that the people of the District of Placentia & St. Mary's
bring to me on a regular basis, that the people of Placentia & St. Mary's
brought to the minister last Wednesday, that the people of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, that message is brought up to Ottawa, that message is
brought to the powers that be in Ottawa and to say: Look, we need this
infrastructure. We have some major industries in this Province.
Just the fishing industry alone, Mr. Speaker, I met a tractor-trailer - I was
coming out of St. Mary's Bay on Sunday, I attended the annual ceremonial revue
for the Cadets in St. Mary's on Sunday evening. As I was coming up I met a
tractor-trailer who was travelling to the crab plant down in St. Mary's. The
truck was crawling along the highway, Mr. Speaker, crawling along for the simple
reason of the road conditions. A big machine, a full-size tractor-trailer, Mr.
Speaker. I would not say he was doing 20 kilometres, because I am sure the
driver knew himself the damage that could be caused to his vehicle. The danger
of being on that highway at the present time in car - alone say a
tractor-trailer - is certainly something that is very important. Everybody
realizes that.
Certainly, the issue being brought forward today, as I said when I began, is
not a new issue but it is an important issue because of the fact that we had a
failure of the previous Administration to address this concern in anyway -
brings us forward today. That is what happens in the mess we are in today in
relation to the road work in this Province. Newfoundland and Labrador is now in
the position - and we, as the government, have put forward an extra million
dollars this year in the Budget into marketing our Province to the outside world
in relation to the development of tourism in this Province.
When many people come to our Province they travel in RVs, Mr. Speaker. They
travel in different types -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's that his time has
expired.
MR. MANNING: Just a moment to clue up, Mr. Speaker, if I could.
As we try to develop our tourism industry in this Province and bring people
in here, I think it is important that we have a proper road network here, not
only on the Trans-Canada Highway. I think that message needs to be brought to
Ottawa, that there is more to Newfoundland and Labrador than the Trans-Canada
Highway. The by-roads, the trunk roads that travel all around this Province are
part of our developing tourism industry, and we need to be able to do that.
Forget about, Mr. Speaker, for a second, the people who will be travelling here.
Just think of the citizens of this Province. The citizens of Newfoundland and
Labrador who travel these roads on a daily basis. Think of the damage that is
being done to vehicles. Think of the danger these people have to be involved in
each and every day.
We hear a lot of concerns raised about moose on our highways, but, Mr.
Speaker, the condition of the roads themselves. That is why I fully support the
resolution today to hopefully work out a new comprehensive transportation
infrastructure agreement between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and
to Ottawa, and I certainly look forward to funding from Ottawa in a partnership
with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to address some of the concerns
that have been raised, not only by myself, but indeed, all Members of the House
of Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to take a few moments to speak on the private member's
resolution by the Member for Bonavista South here today. Just to explain -
because everyone here knows - but the viewing audience, of course, and there is
a viewing audience to these proceedings throughout the week and whenever we meet
at night. Here is how the system works: On the bottom of their screen, they just
see a little caption that says, Private Member's Motion. Maybe just a little
explanation of what is happening here. Every second Wednesday, when the House is
in session, we have what we call a Private Members' Day, and private members
on each side of the House get an opportunity to put forward a resolution that
they would like to have the House consider, and, if they want to make amendments
even, you can move amendments and so on. At the end of the day, when everybody
has had their piece, we vote upon whether that is a good motion or a good
resolution or a good idea, that we, as members, and as the House, would like to
proceed with. That is what we are having today. We have a motion here today that
has been put forward by the Member for Bonavista South, saying that the federal
government and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador should enter into
another agreement, vis--vis funding for roads in this Province, a very worthy
purpose of that Private Member's Motion.
Disappointed somewhat, we did not hear the Private Member's Motion from the
Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. He had intended to have his on a
preceding Wednesday, of course, but, due to procedural difficulties, he did not
get an opportunity. I noticed he was very upset and had some pieces in the media
about why he did not get it on. I noticed he did not come back today, so
obviously the Member for Bonavista South's resolution was given priority, and
came back on today. I always appreciate the comments of the Member for Placentia
& St. Mary's and look forward to dealing with his resolution some time in
the future.
The resolution that we have here today is a federal-provincial issue. In
Question Period earlier today, I asked the Premier quite clearly, because I,
also, as the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, filed another resolution
suggesting that, because we are having a federal election, what a prime
opportunity to get everybody who is going to run for any party, Liberal,
Conservative, NDP - if you are going to run, here are a bunch of issues that we
have had on the table, some of them since Confederation: the fisheries; the
management of our fisheries; our highways, as discussed by the Member for
Bonavista South; our funding for health care; and our EI system - there is a
whole pile of issues - 5 Wing Goose Bay; what is going to happen to the 8.5 per
cent share in Hibernia; what about our principle share of the Atlantic Accord.
The purpose of the resolution was to embody all of these things, take
everybody in the House, regardless of what political stripe you are, consider
all these issues, plus anymore we would like, come up with an agreement and say
to all of these federal members, candidates, parties, and particularly the party
leaders, because it is very important - there is not much point in having just
the member, who might become an MP, sign on. We need the federal leaders to sign
on to what we, any party in this Province, agree to.
What did the Premier of this Province say today? No part of it! I want no
part of it. He said, I am better off without you, in essence. All you people
were, was confrontational. This is the same man, by the way,