Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 16 May 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 25)
2002-05-16
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 16, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 25
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to rule on
couple of points of order that were raised yesterday and on Tuesday of this
week. On May 13, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy raised a point of
order concerning the use, during Oral Question Period, of a comment he had made
during a meeting of the Resource Estimates Committee. The minister stated that
the Leader of the Opposition left the wrong impression in quoting an excerpt
from the records of the meeting rather than the whole passage. It appears, from
reading Hansard, that there is a difference of opinion between the two hon.
members and that the hon. minister really was taking the opportunity to clarify
what he had meant.
This brings me to, of course,
preambles to questions and answers. I want to
take this opportunity to remind members that
preambles to questions are not
permitted except for a short explanation before an original question. The Chair
has noticed lengthy
preambles are creeping into the questions again and the
effect of this is to elicit a long
preamble to the answer, and the time for Oral
Question Period, of course, is then taken up in debate rather than eliciting
information. The Chair would remind all hon. members to keep questions and
answers brief and to the point.
Yesterday, the hon. the Government House Leader raised a point of order
concerning comments made by the Leader of the Opposition during Oral Question
Period. The Leader of the Opposition, in questioning the hon. the Premier, said,
"My question for the Premier is: Why did he try to mislead the people into
thinking that there was going to be a debate in this House on Voisey's
Bay...".
It has been held on numerous occasions in this House that to suggest that a
member misled the House is not unparliamentary, as one can mislead
inadvertently; however, to suggest that a member has intentionally misled the
House is unparliamentary and out of order. In this instance, the Chair is of the
opinion that the expression "try to mislead" is unparliamentary, as
there is a suggestion of deliberation or intent on the part of the Premier. The
Chair therefore asks the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw this comment.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: If I am going to withdraw it, I want to make sure he is
here to do it, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. WILLIAMS: I respect the ruling of the Speaker and I certainly
withdraw my comment. My remark was certainly no intention to imply that there
was any deliberate intention to mislead the House. That remark is withdrawn.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member.
The Chair would also like to welcome to the gallery today, Mayor Jerry Dean
from the Town of Botwood, Town Manger Ed Evans, and Councillor Scott Sceviour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery today,
twenty-two Grade 8 students from Inter-Island Academy, Summerford, and they are
accompanied by their teachers: Derek Dalley and Kim Harris, and bus driver John
Philpott.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this House today to congratulate Margaret Burden of Port Hope
Simpson, who has been recognized for her efforts to promote recreation in
Labrador.
Ms Burden was one of four recipients of awards at the 2002 Newfoundland and
Labrador Parks and Recreation Awards. The others were: Charlie Stephens of Mount
Pearl, Jim Scott of Gander, and the Grand Bank Lions Club.
Mr. Speaker, Margaret has played a huge role in the promotion of recreation
activities in Labrador and she received the Pitcher Plant Individual award. She
has worked tirelessly in her efforts to promote and organize the Labrador Winter
Games, a very successful event that Labradorians are truly proud of. But, more
than that, Mr. Speaker, Margaret is always there to help others, whether it be
assisting persons with disabilities within her community or volunteering with
the Pottery Therapy program that she has been so committed to.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, I want to congratulate
Margaret for her award and her efforts to promote recreational activities within
my district.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a recently deceased centenarian,
Mrs. Ellen Mary Hickey of Holyrood. She passed away peacefully in the presence
of her family, on May 6, in her 101 st year. As the oldest resident in
the town, Mrs. Hickey, with her passing, marks the end of an era certainly for
that town.
Born Ellen Mary Webb in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, she immigrated to this
Province as a teenage bride of Lawrence Hickey, a miner who had gone to Glace
Bay for work. Making their home in Holyrood, the couple raised two children: son
Fred and daughter Evelyn. The family since extended into four grandchildren,
eleven great-grandchildren, and three great-great-grandchildren. As well, the
Hickey's acted as foster parents to a number of children.
Ellen Mary readily adopted Holyrood as her home taking an active
part in all
aspects of the community life and certainly was a pioneer, or considered a
pioneer, in that particular community. She, as a midwife, provided a valuable
service in the time when doctors were not available. Many older residents of
Holyrood were delivered into this world by her hands. Young and old alike, Mr.
Speaker, have many fond memories of this fine lady.
Recently the town honoured this lady. She assisted Mayor Jim Lewis with the
opening of the Crystal Carnival at age 100. She followed current events closely
right up until her death, and when asked about reaching 100 years, she replied:
If I had known I would reach 100, I would have taken better care of myself. On
getting old, she warns that she knew she was getting old when getting up in the
morning, the snap, crackle and pop that she heard was not the Rice Krispies.
On behalf of her MHA, Mr. Bob French, myself, I would ask all members of this
House to extend condolences to the Hickey family on the passing of their
matriarch, Mrs. Ellen Mary Hickey.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ocean Net is an action-oriented, grassroots, non-profit organization founded
in Newfoundland and Labrador whose primary mandate is to help reverse the
destruction of the world's oceans. Ocean Net has partnered with diving clubs,
schools, fishermen, community organizations, government agencies and
environmental groups to implement a series of environmental initiatives.
One such initiative is a challenge to all schools, individuals and indeed
community groups in the Province to participate in the organization's second
annual Oceans Day 2002 Beach and Shoreline Cleanup Challenge. Cleanups are being
organized throughout the year but Oceans Day, held on June 8 is the focus.
Ocean Net founder Robert O'Brien, who will lead a team of organizers at St.
Phillips beach, believes that this event is a great way to recognize the value
of clean oceans.
The goal for this year is to clean up fifty beaches. It will kick off another
year of environmental activity by the organization, which now has a five-year
documented history of volunteer environmental leadership in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
This initiative is an excellent way to bring communities together, and at the
end of the day preserve a pristine and beautiful beach for all to enjoy. Ocean
Net receives support from various levels of government, both federal, provincial
and some municipal and also from the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Newfoundland
and Labrador has some of the most beautiful and pristine beaches in the world.
I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in wishing Ocean
Net success in keeping those beaches clean and beautiful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to congratulate the community centre in Shea Heights who have
recently installed the Community Access Program introducing to the community
access to the World Wide Web. This gives opportunity to students to research for
homework, to parents to gather background information on medical issues and
other such research. Mr. Speaker, this is a valuable asset to the community
centre in Shea Heights because it opens the doors to the community. Anybody who
is not able to have access to the Computer Access Program, to have access. I
congratulate all of those involved who have volunteered to ensure that this
program was successful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make a member's statement.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an individual who has, as of
late, received much attention both nationally and internationally, and is a
source of great pride for the residents of Twillingate Island, and indeed the
entire Province.
Mr. Speaker, the individual of whom I speak exhibits characteristics and
traits which are quite common in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians everywhere.
Leadership, dogged determination, and the ability to stand tall in the face of
adversity - these are just some of the qualities that distinguish this person
above all others.
Mr. Speaker, he has overcome serious hardships and difficulties, and has
risen to the top of his profession, exemplifying the spirit and tenacity for
which Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are known.
Mr. Speaker, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Roberts of Twillingate, number
seven of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Gary Roberts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Number seven of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Gary Roberts is
leading the only Canadian team remaining in the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs. I ask
all hon. members in this House to join with me in wishing him and his team the
very best in their quest for the Stanley Cup.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say two things: Go Gary! Go
Leafs!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of the
results of the roundtable held yesterday on a further 10 per cent tuition
reduction at Memorial University, and also to acknowledge and welcome to the
gallery: Gilbert Salam, the new President of MUNSU; Liam Walsh and Marcus Penney
of the Canadian Federation of Students; Matthew Byrne of the Grenfell Student
Union; and Tom Duggan, Vice-President External of MUNSU.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: I am pleased to announce that all parties at the roundtable
unanimously agreed that the best way to invest the $3.5 million set aside in
this year's budget process is to implement the proposed 10 per cent tuition
reduction for Memorial University.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I will be writing the Board of Regents today to
request that they consider a further reduction in tuition rates by 10 per cent.
The effect of this reduction would bring tuition fees to $2,675 per year, one of
the lowest rates in Canada. The reduction will apply to all programs with the
exception of the Marine Institute, which already has similar fees to the College
of the North Atlantic, and the Medical School where government will ask the
Board of Regents to extend the tuition freeze for a further year.
This announcement, in addition to the recent announcement surrounding Student
Financial Services in the Province, means that students now have access to one
of the most progressive post-secondary education systems in the country.
Mr. Speaker, this will mean that starting this September, not only will
students at Memorial University pay the lowest tuition in Atlantic Canada; they
will also have access to Student Financial Services that provide: a debt
reduction grant program that will eliminate up to 100 per cent of the provincial
student loan for high needs borrowers -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: - targeted programs for MUN medical students and Early
Childhood Education students; an increased commitment to career and financial
counseling; and a flexible appeals system that takes into consideration
extenuating circumstances - especially those for single parents and disabled
students.
Students, and other stakeholder groups, asked government to allow them to
decide how best to invest this money for their education and their future - and
we have delivered, Mr. Speaker. This decision will lower the cost of
post-secondary education in the Province and help meet the mandate of
affordable, accessible and accountable post-secondary education established by
this government.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for giving me a copy of her statement before the House
opened. I would like to also take the opportunity to welcome the representatives
of students here to the gallery today.
We, on this side of the House, are very pleased with the news that tutitions
are going to be cut by 10 per cent again. When the Budget was announced we were
concerned, because of the way that the minister announced it in the Budget, that
there was a possibility that the 10 per cent reduction would not be put in
place, that they would look at other ways of reducing tuition costs to students.
We all know that the best place to reduce the tuition cost is in the tuition
itself, Mr. Speaker. We are very pleased on this side of the House to see this
announcement today.
We also certainly are very pleased that the students themselves, the student
leaders themselves, are involved in the decision-making process because it can
only produce positive results, as we have seen here today.
We certainly welcome the news. Anything that is positive to provide
accessible, affordable, post-secondary education to all the students of
Newfoundland and Labrador is something that this side of the House will support
and agree upon. We certainly look forward to any other good news that the
minister may have.
In keeping with that, we just say that there are special circumstances in
many students' cases that we look at, especially those who come from rural
Newfoundland, who have extra costs - extra costs associated with travel, board,
and everything else - that we look at ways of providing more accessible
education to those people, more affordable. We look forward to anything positive
that will help the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement here in the
House today, and acknowledge the fact that I did have the other statement the
other day but it was not presented to me.
I am glad the students leaders are here, Mr. Speaker, because I want to
congratulate them on their unity and solidarity in demanding that the money be
used to reduce tuition by 10 per cent, contrary to the suggestions of the
minister on Monday in the House, but they were unanimous. I also want to
acknowledge that the minister's officials, at that meeting, were very directed
in their interest in seeing the money go towards tuition. I want to acknowledge
that here publicly today. I think it is a positive step. It is a positive step
and a step forward. It leads to progressive policies for students in this
Province.
I think we have to start worrying and concerning ourselves now, Mr. Speaker,
about the high cost of a medical education in this Province. It is driving
students, young medical graduates out of the Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: It is having the effect of driving young medical graduates
out of the Province and making it difficult to recruit graduates. Also, we
should start thinking about those who have been damaged by the disaster of
student aid policies of the last ten years. Something should be done to try and
redress those wrongs, Mr. Speaker. The high cost of student debt has led them to
be in a serious financial situation. Many of them have been forced to leave the
Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is difficult to get serious today. Everybody is in such a good mood, the
24 th of May weekend coming up. We should actually give the Member for
Cape St. Francis a big round of applause for his championing of the cause of
trout and we can catch pan-size trout this weekend. A big round of applause for
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has gone from wanting a debate in
1999 when he was minister to not wanting a debate, as Premier, until yesterday
when he finally caved in from pressure from the Opposition, from our advertising
campaign -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: - and listened to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
and said that he would bring a binding agreement to the Legislature for
ratification. We need to note, Mr. Speaker, that the ratification is after the
fact, it is after the agreement is legal and binding on the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question from yesterday, and I ask the Premier: Why
would he not debate the terms of the agreement in this Legislature before it is
final and binding and enable the Opposition and the people of this Province to
make suggestions, constructive suggestions, as to how they might improve this
deal for the people of the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to further clarify the position because the
Opposition seems to have trouble understanding it. Mr. Speaker, the point is
this: everybody involved in the negotiation from the government side - because
we do have a mandate to negotiate on behalf of the people of the Province, we
are elected to do that - and everybody who are negotiating for Inco understands,
because we have been in contact with them in the last little while, now that we
have passed over, voluntarily, the right to have a vote - because it is not
required by law to have a vote on this issue in this Legislature. We have
decided, because of the nature of the issue, to have a vote. They understand
fully in the discussions that any agreement we reach with them, that we bring
here for ratification, will have no impact, will be binding on nobody, unless it
passes a vote in this Legislature. They know that today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I need to get clarification because there are
inconsistent messages that are coming out.
Outside the House yesterday the Premier clearly indicated that there would be
no ratification clause contained in the agreement that was going to be brought
before the Legislature. Last night his trusted confidant, the Minister for Human
Resources and the Member for Topsail, said: I am not a lawyer, but I believe
that 90 per cent of Newfoundland knows full well that if you are going to enter
into an agreement that we are going to sign on to, we are not going to take it
into the House of Assembly and have it voted on, to be voted down, or take the
chance of voting it down without a clause saying that this deal is subject to a
vote in the House of Assembly. That is how simple it is. That is your quote.
Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is - those statements are
completely opposite, completely contradictory, completely inconsistent. Who is
right? Is your statement right, Premier, or the statement of the Minister for
Human Resources? Which statement is correct?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition, I think, knows this issue entirely and
completely. I give him credit for that, absolutely. He knows now, just as he has
been doing for the last three or four days, actually for the last several weeks,
that his only objective is to try to create confusion here when there is none.
That is his whole desire, Mr. Speaker.
Let me repeat again for everybody in the Province. Everyone who is at the
negotiating table - where he is not, by the way, because he has no mandate to
negotiate for the people of the Province, he is in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Everyone who is negotiating with respect to this issue
understands that nothing is binding on anybody unless it passes the vote in this
Legislature. They have given us no indication that they need or desire anything
in writing to that respect. We have given them no indication that we need to put
it there. As a matter of fact, they have told us as recently as today, in our
officials speaking to them, that their intention, what they are trying to
accomplish, is an agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador so
we can proceed with a project.
They are not trying to set up a circumstance where the agreement fails and
they sue the government. That is not what they are interested in. Their interest
in this case is aligned with ours. We are both trying to do something to let the
project proceed. Nobody involved in the negotiations - the only person talking
about suing anybody in this issue is the Leader of the Opposition, the same as
he does with any kind of issue. If he has nothing else to talk about, he will
bring in a totally non-related absolutely unfounded issue -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - and try to tie it into something in which it has no
application.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier says that I have no mandate to
negotiate. Well, that makes two of us, Premier, because you have no mandate
whatsoever from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, given the very serious legal consequences for
damages that can arise from the failure to have a clause in the contract that it
be ratified by the House of Assembly, I ask the Premier: Why would he expose the
Province to the risk? There is a very simple, straightforward solution. Will
you, Premier, put a clause in the agreement that says it is subject to
ratification by the House of Assembly? I need a yes or no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again the Leader of the Opposition today would rather stand here
and talk about a diversion, about something that has nothing to do with the
Voisey's Bay issue. He did touch for a minute on the real issue, because his
cohort, the Opposition House Leader, who changed his mind four times in the
space of twelve hours as to what they really wanted accomplished and what they
wanted to do, spent all last year suggesting to the people of the Province that
I personally, and this government, does not have a mandate, and he did touch on
that.
We do have a mandate, and we are going to live to our mandate 100 per cent.
We hope to deliver a deal, and in that deal there are no concerns whatsoever
about anyone suing anyone; because, unless it passes a vote in this Legislature,
it will be binding on no one, it will have no impact, in effect, and everyone
who is negotiating for us, and everyone who is negotiating for Inco,
acknowledges that today, knows that today, and has absolutely no concern about
that today.
The only person raising that as an issue - because he does not want to talk
about the real issues. He does not want to talk about a framework today. He did
not want to talk about it yesterday. He does not want to talk about the deal
today. He does not want to talk about the benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador
today. He wants to suggest that there is some potential problem which does not
exist, because he does not know what his own position is on this particular
issue.
We would gladly, by the way -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - suspend the rules of the Legislature again today and
have the debate that he called for yesterday, which is the framework of a
potential agreement on Voisey's Bay, if that is his wish.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of where we can help, where we are
making a constructive comment, quite seriously, based on our experience, based
on what we know about contracts. We make a constructive comment here and the
Premier flippantly just throws it away.
Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one who is concerned about this. There is at
least one member of the Premier's Cabinet who is concerned, which is the
Minister of Human Resources, because he says that 90 per cent of the people
would have that clause in the contract.
I ask the Premier: Are you part of the 10 per cent? And how many of the rest
over there are part of the 10 per cent, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me give a little further information
rather than deal with the kind of diversionary tactics that the Leader of the
Opposition likes to try to deal with. What we will be presenting, if we are
successful, for ratification in this Legislature in full debate, is a Statement
of Principles, hopefully, that will be agreed to between the government and Inco,
with respect to developing the Voisey's Bay deposit.
Everyone understands - and they were very upset about the language of signing
off and signing things, although the Opposition House Leader, on Open Line
yesterday, said: What we want is that, after the Premier signs the agreement, we
want it debated in the House before it becomes binding. That was his quote
yesterday.
We will sign off on a Statement of Principles, Mr. Speaker, and then it will
be brought here for debate. Everyone knows that none of it will be binding on
either Inco or us unless it passes a vote in this Legislature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Is he telling
this House today, that the document that will be executed or will be agreed upon
between Inco and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will not be binding
on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador until after it is ratified by the House of Assembly? Because, if
that is the case, that is exactly what I am saying and we have a deal. We are in
agreement with the process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Let me try to say it again more clearly, Mr. Speaker, and
allow the Leader of the Opposition the comfort that he could have had yesterday,
I guess, if he had listened to Jim Morgan and stopped playing politics with the
issue, because the other great Progressive Conservative in the Province gave him
some advice this morning.
Jim Morgan clearly understood, if anybody else didn't. He heard some clips
on the news and he clearly understood that this was binding on nobody, now that
it is going to have a vote in the Legislature. Unless the vote passes here, this
binds nobody to anything. I believe that everybody else here, maybe, except the
Leader of the Opposition, was willing to say they understood that to be the case
yesterday and the day before, Mr. Speaker.
The issue here is this, and let's make sure we are crystal clear, because I
do not want people to be confused about any of it. Let's have the issue
crystal clear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: When it comes here, Mr. Speaker, because the Leader of
the Opposition says it is an example of us giving constructive suggestions,
improving the deal and so on, there is no opportunity in a ratification vote for
amendments to the Agreement in Principle. Let's be crystal clear on that. We
do not want to mislead anybody. Now I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will
stand up and say - because he just agreed to the process and said, we are all
for it - if we cannot amend it, what is the point in having a debate?
Stand up and say it, because I know you are going to say it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My first supplementary for the Premier is: Will you put a clause in the
agreement between yourselves and Inco that says that the entire agreement is
subject to ratification by this House of Assembly? Will you put that clause in,
yes or no?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that we are not in a
courtroom. That might be a tactic that is useful in a courtroom. This is a
parliamentary debate, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: I do not feel obligated to answer those kinds of
questions.
Mr. Speaker, I understood the Leader of the Opposition to now, finally, say
that he agrees with, accepts and understands, the process that we have laid out.
My question is this: When is he now going to say he does not agree with it
because there is no opportunity to amend the Agreement in Principle? Because,
that is their next position. I can guarantee you, that will be the next position
of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will ask the Premier again: Does he agree with his Minister of Human
Resources - and, as the minister said, 90 per cent of the people in this
Province - that you would be foolish to go ahead with a deal that did not have a
ratification clause in it? I ask you again, yes or no, Premier? Will you put a
ratification clause in the agreement that says that it is not legal and binding
until it is voted upon by this Legislature, the people's courtroom, the people's
voice?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad today that we have clarified that the Leader of the Opposition now
understands and approves of the process that we have outlined, which is: that
the government, which has a mandate, will negotiate an agreement, a set of
principles, that will later on be turned into legally binding documents by
lawyers. He understands that process.
I heard a caller - actually, it was reported to me - who suggested that the
way to make sure that the Leader of the Opposition was satisfied here, because
he does want to have input, is that, after we get the Agreement in Principle,
because we do need the legal work done, that we should hire Mr. William's firm
because then he would understand that he is getting some input into it. Maybe
that is the answer, Mr. Speaker, because it will take probably six or seven or
eight months, if it is voted upon in the affirmative in this Legislature. Right
now, I guess, the only person that I can imagine who does not understand that
this is not legal and binding on anyone if it does not pass here, the only
person who seems to be suggesting that they still do not understand that is the
Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, there has been no need from the Inco side
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - who were at the negotiating, or from the government
side to write down what everyone of us understands is the process in any event,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the policies of the provincial government as they relate to the
processing sector of the fishery are leading to instability and uncertainty in
the crab fishery this year. Lack of stability, coupled with an inconsistent and
unpredictable licencing policy, has lead to tremendous uncertainty in the
processing and harvesting sectors. I have had calls expressing concerns about
plant production quotas, concerns about the variance between the negotiated and
offered prices and predictions of a closure of the fishery.
Mr. Speaker, does the minister have any concerns that the chaos which seems
to have engulfed the crab fishery this year could lead to serious problems in
the industry, including the possible closure of the crab and/or shrimp
fisheries?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I, and every member on this side, always have concerns about
what is happening in the fishery. With regard to the price of crab this year,
the hon. member opposite knows that we have a Final Offer Selection Agreement in
place between FANL and the union whereby if they both cannot reach - whereby if
the union puts forward a price that they are looking for, FANL puts forward a
price that they are willing to give. If they cannot come to an agreement between
them, it goes to an arbitrator and he decides whether it is going to be - if he
rules on the side of the union or on the side of the processors, Mr. Speaker, we
stay out of that. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a minimum price that is negotiated and
there is nothing in any legislation that prohibits one plant owner from going
out and offering one particular fisherman or fisherwoman in this Province more
than what was negotiated at the table. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have
not signed on to any production quotas when it comes to crab and we made it
quite clear last fall that we would not be doing so.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &
White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that I was not talking
about the Final Offer Selection process and I was talking about the significant
problems related to the policies of his department. This minister should know
that any problems in the crab fishery have direct and significant impacts on the
shrimp fishery. The minister should know that the crab fishery provides the cash
flow for the industry to pursue the shrimp fishery.
Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that many in the industry fear a
closure of the shrimp fishery again this year with an expectation that it will
close down before the end of June?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss as to what the question was in that
because I did not hear one. He talks about the policies of the Department of
Fisheries, that it is having an impact. The only thing that we do is we licence
fish processing facilities, Mr. Speaker. If he is saying that we have issued too
many, than I ask him why is he knocking on my door looking for another crab
processing licence for St. Anthony?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North,
final supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand what his licencing
policy is when we now have forty-two crab licences and sixteen shrimp licences
out there. That is what I am trying to understand.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has had the report of the Inshore Shrimp Panel for
over a month now. The report on the cooked and peeled shrimp industry was
commissioned by the minister when he finally realized that the policies of his
government have led the shrimp industry down the road towards economic ruin.
Mr. Speaker, my question - in case he missed the last one, which he did - so
he does not miss this one, this is the question: What does the minister plan to
do with the recommendations in the report that he commissioned? When will he
review his fish processing licence policy and when will he get off his hands and
actually do something with the department that he is the head of?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member opposite
now for a year talking about his plan. The only one issue that I have heard in
the platform that he has with regard to processing is to close the Twillingate
plant on Twillingate Island. That is the only thing that I have heard
categorically from the member opposite, that if he were Minister of Fisheries,
the only thing that he would do would be close the plant on Twillingate Island
and put those people who are looking for work there this year out of work. That
is his platform, Mr. Speaker.
With regard to the recommendations in the panel that we had on shrimp, there
were thirty-eight recommendations in that report, Mr. Speaker, and he told me he
read them time and time again. He says to me today: Do I accept all the
recommendations in that report? Well, Mr. Speaker, there are thirty-eight
recommendations. There are only twelve of those recommendations that the
provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture can deal with. The other
twenty-six have to deal with DFO, FANL and the union, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot
speak for DFO, FANL or the union -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.
MR. REID: - but I have been, for the past two weeks, in discussion with
FANL and the union as to which recommendations we can accept and which we should
reject.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. Will the
minister confirm that municipal recyclers are having difficulty with tire
storage issues, with permits for their storage facilities? In fact, they have
not even started recycling yet and most of their problems are due to the fact
that government implemented this program before they had the proper procedures,
the proper mechanisms in place to ensure that it would be successful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the project and the policy is still being carried forward. We
are still working through some of the glitches, some of the problems that we are
experiencing with it, but a number of municipalities are onside. We are working
with the contractor to implement the program. In very short time, we will have a
further update on the details of the implementation of the program.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That is the same answer we heard three weeks ago and the program is still
failing.
Mr. Speaker, I ask: Did municipal recyclers request from the minister's
department or from government that they cancel the contract in part because it
was so poorly implemented to begin with?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the critic of the Opposition, what he tries
to do most of the time is try to make sure something is not going to work or try
to make sure that the issue - he makes it an issue so that it will not work.
But, I can say this to the member, what we are trying to do is make this policy
work. This is a very good policy. We will be going forward with the policy. We
are in discussions with the contractor, and we will work out the problems that
we are experiencing. Once it is worked out, this policy will be extremely good
for the environment of this Province. So, as we work forward with the contractor
- we are in direct discussions with them on a daily basis. We will solve these
problems and in very short order we will have the problems worked out and the
policy will be carried forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's
South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Is it true that government refused to cancel the contract
at the request of the recycler, the contractor, because they did not want to
refund the $75,000 deposit, and instead they were hoping municipal recyclers
would either be forced to fold their tent or walk away, removing the blame from
government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have tried to avoid having a public
discussion about this situation with municipal recyclers because of their own
internal problems, which have been in the media. We have been trying to work
with them, as the contractor, to work out the problems to have the
implementation of the contract. We are in direct discussions with them in the
last few days as to whether or not they will be able to continue. We will have a
final decision on that very shortly and we will have an alternative plan if that
is the case, as we would for any other process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier. Now that he has confirmed, as he did
yesterday, that the agreement or any agreement with Voisey's Bay would be a
tentative agreement subject to the ratification of this House of Assembly, is he
prepared to make this a meaningful process and allow a Select Committee of this
House to examine the agreement to call witnesses, if necessary, to study the
agreement and report back to the House so that we will all have the benefit of a
full discussion, full insight, and full scrutiny of any deal that might be
presented?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While we are dealing with the question I might ask the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi, who was a former law partner of the Leader of the Opposition,
to give him his advice about whether or not there is going to be a lawsuit from
Inco against the government with respect to this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the former partner does not
share the legal opinion of the Leader of the Opposition.
It is the intention, as laid out clearly by the government - and again to
point out that the government has a complete and total and entire mandate to
sign off on this particular deal and implement it without any reference to the
House of Assembly, without any ratification vote, without any examination by
anyone other than what process that we determine ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, what we have - because of the political nature of the deal -
agreed to do, because we want exposure and we want full debate, we have decided
that one of the avenues that will be used other than public meetings and
explanations and explorations of it all over the Province by the government,
would be to have a full debate on a ratification vote in this Legislature and
that if the ratification vote is successful, the deal will be implemented.
Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of the government to go beyond that with a
larger process of this Legislature because there is no requirement to bring it
to this Legislature in the first (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Many people will recall, or at least have been told about, the appearance
before this House of Assembly, of Mr. John Shaheen. When the financing for the
Come By Chance refinery was discussed, Mr. Shaheen was before the Bar of the
House being questioned by members on both sides of the House. I would suggest,
Mr. Speaker, that might make the process a little bit more meaningful -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. HARRIS: - that, rather than just a perfunctory vote, will the Premier
not agree that proper scrutiny of a deal might require a little more detail than
just a perfunctory vote in the House of Assembly?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I repeat again, it is not the intention of government to go through that kind
of a process. Mr. Speaker, we have every confidence that, when the Statement of
Principles is laid on the Table in this Legislature and provided to every single
person in Newfoundland and Labrador who wants to examine it, that they will find
their own way to express their views as to whether or not they like or dislike
some components of the deal.
The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: there aren't any amendments to
it that can be made in the process. It will be a negotiated deal for
ratification. It might make some sense if it was possible to go out and say:
Well, we agree here in my hometown of Grand Falls-Windsor that clause 3 should
change. But, if clause 3 changes, there is no deal. So, the process does not
lend itself to any particular use of that kind of -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: - notion and concept, but the ratification debate will
occur in this Legislature and the explanation of the deal and the contents of it
will be done fully throughout the Province by the government.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. Time for one quick question.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
It concerns a public meeting that I attended in Chapel Cove last evening, Mr.
Speaker, concerning the contamination of water with arsenic discovered six
months ago. To date, the officials of your department have certainly done the
testing to show high levels of arsenic poisoning and they have been told,
simply, Minister, not to worry, to see their family physician and hope that
nothing will show up in the future.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON: So, I ask the minister: How are his officials addressing
this problem? And, will he make a commitment to send out some panel of experts
to the people of Chapel Cove that can answer questions, that can allay their
fears, that can certainly give them peace of mind -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair asks the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. HEDDERSON: - that their short-term and long-term effects on their
health is not going to cause irreparable damage to their health?
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. member, I will say that the medical health officer for that area,
it is an issue that Dr. Donovan has been pursuing on a regular basis. As a
matter of fact, I learned this morning of the meeting least night. The
department was not advised that there was a meeting. I understand it was a
public meeting that they called. Dr. Donovan was not invited but she has met
with the group concerned. She has offered to be available to meet with them at
any point in time. In addition, Mr. Speaker, plans are underway, I am sure, as
the hon. member would be aware, to hire a consultant to actually look at the
long-term effects of that situation and to work with the population there.
Certainly we, as a department, are concerned -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: - with the long-term health effects of the people in that area
and we are taking appropriate measures to, first of all, give them a level of
comfort and try to offer them whatever support they may need.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Before I recognize the hon. member, I would like to acknowledge the presence
today of a former member of the House for The Straits & White Bay North, Mr.
Chris Decker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to correct a misleading statement made by the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Mr. Speaker, I have never, either inside this House or outside this House,
said that the Twillingate shrimp plant, the licence or the plant, would be
closed down by this party. I have never said that. What I have said, Mr.
Speaker, is the same thing that the people of Twillingate have said: that if the
Member for Twillingate & Fogo was doing his job since 1997 then the people
of Twillingate would have had a shrimp plant long ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order. The hon. member wants to clarify a statement that
was made earlier by the hon. the Minister of Fisheries.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
In accordance with the Internal Economy Commission Act, the Chair would like
to table the Report of the Commission of Internal Economy for the fiscal year
April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday in the House there was a question asked by a member opposite
concerning a young lady in Pippy Park who had worked there for the past two
years, went to the manager and was told she would not get her job back this
year.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the member if he would submit a name and I would
certainly look into it. I think it is such an important issue that I want to say
that I did speak with the Pippy Park Commission this morning.
I think it is important for people to understand that these jobs that are
available are about ten-week jobs. They are for post-secondary students, or
those who would be soon post-secondary students. There are approximately fifteen
to twenty jobs available. There are approximately 100 applications in a file
folder supported by members from both sides of this House of Assembly. These
applications go directly to administration. The implication that Mr. Tom Murphy
was somehow involved, the Chair has absolutely nothing to do with any of the
hirings. The only thing that he would do would be to send any applications he
gets to the administrative staff, who are the people responsible for the hiring
of any students.
There is a long compilation of applicants. I would also say again, the Chair
has nothing to do with it. Interviews are provided to applicants. I think it is
important to note, Mr. Speaker, that students are not rehired for a variety of
reasons. I think that would certainly be clear in the event students may have
worked there in the past and that would have to be factored in. It is not an
automatic process. Students are interviewed, and if they have obviously a past
working experience, that working experience would have to be incorporated into
the decision of hiring.
In fact, I want to add, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Service Commission was
called this morning. The hiring practices associated with summer students was
reviewed with the Public Service Commission and they fully confirm that process.
I want to say again, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong happening here. Again,
these aspersions are unfounded, unnecessary and totally inaccurate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise in my place to present a petition, a very timely petition, Mr.
Speaker, that was dropped off to my office yesterday, and it has to do with
trouting and the DFO proposed regulation changes.
The petition has 151 signatures and some ten letters. I will read the
petition.
PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Now that will tell you how informed the Premier is, he says
there are no proposed changes.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker: To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and
Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;
WHEREAS we oppose legislative changes that do not respect our traditions of
fair and equal access, conservation and our desire to minimize loss of prestine
outdoor space;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to reject the proposal to amend the trouting regulations and to have management
of trout by species, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, the first thing I will have to say on this - this petition is a
direct result of the proposed changes from DFO to Ottawa that was sent off by
the minister, some fourteen pages of proposed changes, Mr. Speaker, and the
Premier here now is saying there are no proposed changes. Well -
PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Now, he is just getting to the very point that I wanted to
make. He says: not for this year. Well, we are not only looking out for this
year, we know that you are very shortsighted, Premier, but we look at the
long-term. We look at the long-term.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: A prime example of how shortsighted you are, is the answers
that you gave in this House of Assembly today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Premier, change your mind one more time. You
are used to changing your mind and we will (inaudible) on this side of the House
with respect to Voisey's Bay, one more time.
With respect to the petition, Mr. Speaker, DFO has proposed to -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the proposed changes by DFO to the minister, some fourteen
pages, the department did propose that there would be trout (inaudible) only be
allowed to be obtained would be thirty centimeters, one foot long, and the
maximum would be sixty centimeters, Mr. Speaker, two feet. The Premier is wrong
on this issue. The Minister of Tourism responded when I asked questions a few
weeks ago, and there was some very quick reaction. We brought it up here on a
Thursday and Friday evening there was a reaction that it would not be imposed
this year. He even said after that, the representative from DFO has said since
then that they are looking at licencing by species. Now, what we will have to
do, the people of this Province will have to go out and buy four licences for
the various trout: the mud trout, the ouananiche, the rainbow, the sea trout,
and also the brown trout. Also, Mr. Speaker, you have to get a licence for
salmon.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the Premier would want to get up and speak to this. Obviously, he does
not know anything about it.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand here today to present a petition as well. The petition reads:
To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the
petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;
WHEREAS the road on the Bonavista Peninsula from Route 235 through the
communities of Open Hall, Red Cliffe, and Tickle Cove, is in such a deplorable
condition that it damages vehicles and creates great discomfort and safety
concerns for school children travelling on school buses; and
WHEREAS this road has not been upgraded since it was first paved more than
twenty-five years ago, despite serious deterioration;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to upgrade where necessary and repave the seven kilometres of road leading from
Route 235 through Open Hall, Red Cliffe and Tickle Cove, as in duty bound your
petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is another petition in a series of petitions that I have
been bringing forward to the House here to echo the voices of the people from
Open Hall, Red Cliffe and Tickle Cove asking that their road be upgraded and
paved in this year's capital works budget.
Mr. Speaker, myself and the minister travelled down to those three
communities a few months ago. We met with some concerned residents there. As a
followup to my visit there with the minister, a group came in and visited the
minister and his staff at his office here and talked again about their concerns
to see this particular roadway included in this year's capital works budget.
There is a gentleman on that particular road who lives there and has
something like thirty truck units on the road hauling fish and storing them, and
operates from the community of Tickle Cove right at the lower end of this
particular access off Route 235. The school bus travels over it on a daily basis
to pick up children in Tickle Cove, Open Hall, and Red Cliffe to take them to
the school in King's Cove.
All they are asking for is that there be a beginning made. They are asking
for seven kilometres of pavement. Their comments to the minister and their
comments to me was: Look, we don't expect to get seven kilometres of pavement
in one construction season. We realize that there are difficult times and there
are other people who are looking for road work, but we would like to see a
beginning made.
Last year there was a promise of two kilometres of pavement on that
particular roadway, but because of budget restraints they ended up with
something like 400 meters. Four hundred meters of pavement of the seven
kilometres that they were asking for. They accepted that, but this year they are
putting a plea in to the minister to come and at least make some realistic
beginning in order to have some realistic work there of at least four kilometers
of pavement done starting in one of the communities and going towards Route 235.
Their request is a simple request. Their request is something that they
deserve. They are not asking for water and sewer; they are not asking for
sidewalks; they are not asking for anything other than a decent road to drive
over. When you talk to the gentleman there who has (inaudible) particular
roadway, and look at what he is contributing -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: By leave if I could, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: -when you look at what he is contributing to the
provincial coffers, not only him but the other people in those three communities
deserve to be considered in this year's capital works budget. I ask the
minister if he will consider this plea in this petition, to have some road work
done on this particular roadway in this construction season.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition from my district and the central region. It reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the District
of Gander and the region serviced by the James Paton Memorial Hospital Humbly
Sheweth
WHEREAS it is the duty of the government to provide the people of the
Province adequate health care; and
WHEREAS the services of a dialysis unit are increasing daily in many
communities of this Province; and
WHEREAS the James Paton Memorial Hospital is a regional hospital, servicing
approximately 50,000 people;
WHEREFORE your petitioners are seeking a commitment from the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to establish a renal dialysis unit at the James Paton
Memorial Hospital;
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, attached to this petition notice is a brief letter which reads:
Please find enclosed another approximately 5,700 signatures from the area
covered by the James Paton Memorial Hospital from Lewisporte to Twillingate,
Fogo to Gander Bay, and all around the loop, including Glovertown and the
Eastport Peninsula.
They state: We are looking forward to a positive response and the
establishment of the unit in Gander. Yours sincerely. It is signed by Hans
Larsen, President of the Gander Lions Club and Chair of the Gander Renal
Dialysis Committee.
Mr. Speaker, as I outlined yesterday here in the House when we were talking
about the private member's motion, presently in our Province we have 240
people receiving hemodialysis treatments at the various sites around our
Province, in St. John's, Corner Brook, Stephenville, Grand Falls-Windsor and
Clarenville. There is some capacity left in the western region of the Province
and a little bit here in St. John's, but in Grand Falls-Windsor, the dialysis
unit has reached it capacity of forty-two patients. Now, patients have to travel
even to the West Coast or to St. John's, and now we have approximately twelve
to fifteen patients who are already travelling to Grand Falls, and several
others now who, because the capacity is all used up in Central Newfoundland, are
having to move to St. John's.
We know that the incidence of kidney disease is expected to increase 9 per
cent to 10 per cent annually in our Province due to an aging population, and we
already know of the high incidence of diabetes.
Right now, in discussions with the Department of Health, they tell me that a
renal dialysis committee is now completing a renal dialysis plan for this
Province. This plan should be ready by the end of May or early June. I look
forward to the department receiving this renal dialysis plan. It is a very high
priority in the Central Newfoundland area.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am proud today to stand to present this petition. I will read the prayer of
the petition first.
To the hon. House of Assembly, the undersigned residents of La Scie and
surrounding communities do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and
pave our roads. The deplorable and unfit conditions of the roads in our area
make travelling to and from school unsafe for our children, as well as
jeopardize the safety of the travelling public, hurt economic growth
opportunities, and betray a lack of commitment to rural areas of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, this is yet another petition I have presented on behalf of these
people in my district. To be honest with you, it is not a very proud moment to
stand and continue to present these petitions. But, as long as they send them
in, I told them that I would present their issue on the floor of the House.
I know the minister knows full well. We talked about it last year, this year,
and with his officials awhile ago. It is continuous. To add it all up, to make
sure that it is well-known, thankfully, the Premier was in my district last week
and did take the time to drive over the La Scie Highway. I was glad to hear that
he did, because many Premiers before him took the helicopter and did not drive
over it. I am glad he drove over the road.
I also can report, at the same time, that when the Premier was in the
district, the people from the depot went on the La Scie Highway and actually put
pylons in front of the holes and the potholes that were so bad, to make sure
that the Premier knew they were there, so they probably would not go down in
them. Mr. Speaker, that is how bad and deplorable it has gotten. In all
fairness, the Premier did tell the people in La Scie that it is probably the
worst road condition in the Province, the La Scie Highway.
Many of my colleagues here heard me say it time after time, year after year.
Yes, we did get a few kilometers of it done two years ago, nothing last year.
There are still forty-two kilometers of very poor road conditions.
Mr. Speaker, I make this point again: La Scie and the eleven communities on
that road - in La Scie, thankfully this year, and I am glad to hear it, the
plant is up and running, a community that has a long history of not just
providing for people in La Scie. But, when the La Scie plant works, and that is
working on that Peninsula, that helps the entire area and all of those
communities on that road. With the fish trucks and the activity, which is the
good news part of it for La Scie, here is what they have to drive over: the most
deplorable conditions in this Province, probably, when it comes to a paved road.
On top of that, we have the school children, who travel further now than ever
before because of all the school reform; from Nippers Harbour, quite a drive,
and other communities surrounding La Scie, the safety aspect.
Another point, the gold mine, the only operating gold mine between Hammerdown
in King's Point and La Scie, the ore has to be transported. Big trucks over
the same road again.
Mr. Speaker, in a nutshell it is like this: That road has to be addressed
this year. It has to be a top priority because, simply put, the La Scie fish
plant and the only gold mine producing in this Province is in jeopardy of not
going forward because of a basic infrastructure that has to be corrected and
corrected this year.
Mr. Speaker, the people are tired of talking about it. I am tired of talking
about it. It has to be addressed.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: It is not urgency any more; it is an emergency. Mr. Speaker,
it is has to be addressed this year.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of
Labrador West, and I will read the prayer of the petition:
To the hon. House of Assembly, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
in Parliament assembled.
WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new MS drug therapies;
and
WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides
medical coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizens' Drug Subsidy Program
and people on income support; and
WHEREAS these drugs are very expensive; and
WHEREAS all other citizens in every Canadian province can receive assistance
with high cost MS drugs, using a co-payment system or a sliding scale program
but limited to social assistance income levels; and
WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people
with MS, we the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct the
government to implement a co-payment or a sliding scale program for these drugs
so that people who do not qualify for assistance under existing programs can get
financial assistance with these high-cost drugs, as is the case in every other
Canadian province.
Mr. Speaker, I have stated many times in the past, both during Question
Period, debate on the Budget, debate on health care issues, and by way of
petitions, which I am doing today, the necessity of providing coverage to people
in this Province who suffer from MS.
As I have said many times, MS is not a disease that they brought on
themselves. It is not something that they asked for. It is not something that
they achieve through abusing their bodies in any way, shape or form. It is
something they were born with and something that they have to live with.
Hopefully, some day, there will be a cure. Until then, many hard-working people
in this Province find themselves in the position where they have to totally
devastate themselves and their families financially if they choose to avail of
this drug.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are people in this Province today who are
not taking these drugs simply because they cannot afford to do so; because, if
they did, they would not be able to provide other necessities of life for
themselves and their children.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that this Province adopt a program, the
same as every other Province in this country, that will provide some assistance
to the hard-working men and women of this Province who are doing their best to
provide for their families, but are inflicted with MS and need help in order to
get the drugs that are required to make their lives much better than they are
without them.
Mr. Speaker, again I say to the minister, I cannot implore him enough, the
necessity of doing this, because it is totally disgraceful that people who work
hard for a living in this Province have to cash in any RRSPs they may have. They
have to liquidate their -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: They have to cash in any other finances that they have. They
have to reduce themselves to a poverty level, both them and their families, in
order for this government to step in and help.
It is not quite as simple, Mr. Speaker, as saying that this government cannot
afford to do it. The bottom line is that once people devastate themselves
financially, then this government will step in and help. What they are asking is
that this government show more compassion, more concern, and step in before they
have to do that to themselves and their families.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition similar to the ones that we
have been presenting in the last several days relative to the development of
Voisey's Bay. This petition is as follows, the prayer reads:
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full
disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador still have great
concerns. At one point today I thought that the Premier and the Leader of the
Opposition may have been able to agree on a process. However - and we do
acknowledge here the great work done by the Leader of the Opposition to try to
bring this process to full disclosure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: We acknowledge the great work done by all the members of
this caucus because if it were not for the great work done by the members of
this caucus and this party, this deal would not even be brought to the House at
any time, even before it was signed, and there would be no public discussion
whatsoever. We, on this side, take credit. We deserve the credit for getting the
process as far along as it is now.
Mr. Speaker, but there is still a lot to be done. We want to make sure that
there is a ratification clause put in this agreement. We want to make sure that
there is no possibility at all for there be any legal ramifications, any
liability to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if this particular
agreement does not pass in this Legislature. That is all that we want done. We
want to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we have reason that asks the basic question:
Can you trust this government to do the right thing? Is there a level of trust
between the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and this Administration? We
believe that there is ample evidence which shows that this government has not
always done the right thing. Lets take the example of Friede Goldman in
Marystown, $80 million of valuable assets, paid for by the taxpayers of this
Province, were let go for $1; $80 million let go with no clause in the agreement
saying that if Friede Goldman were to go bankrupt that these assets would revert
to the Province. Now, it does not take a legal giant to be able to say to the
government that that clause should have been there. Of course, because that
clause was not there we were exposed to losing $79,990,000 -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: On points of order re the presentation of petitions. To have
pointed out that our Standing Orders have some very firm, strict, clear rules re
petitions.
In speaking to a petition we speak to the material allegations and the
signature to the petition and the prayer, Mr. Speaker, and there is to be no
debate. The hon. gentleman is now speaking about an issue that has nothing to do
with his particular petition. There is nothing in it alluding to the prayer.
When he is talking about the shipyard in Marystown, it has nothing to do with
the prayer in the petition, nothing to do with the signatures, nothing to do
with the material allegations. I ask the hon. member - we have been tolerating
the petition, but please, keep himself to the prayer of the petition and to the
rules and regulations laid down by petitions in this House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Is the hon. member speaking to the point of order?
MR. H. HODDER: I am speaking to the point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I will give the hon. member a few minutes to speak to the point of order.
MR. H. HODDER: There is a point in this Legislature when we must tell the
truth. Mr. Speaker, when I talk of Marystown, I am only using that to illustrate
the fact of the reasons why the people, who signed this petition, should not
trust the government. I use their example only as an illustration of what went
wrong -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member is not speaking to the point of order now.
The hon. the Government House Leader is correct, that when petitions are
presented to this House - the comments made by members in presenting the
petitions ought to be inline with the material allegations that are in the -
MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is pointing out that members, in presenting petitions, ought to
keep their comments to the material allegations that are in the prayer of the
petition and petitions are not an opportunity to debate. It is an opportunity
for members to present, on behalf of their constituents, a petition to the
House. They have three minutes to do that and they ought to confine their
comments to the petition itself.
Orders of the Day.
The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if I could ask leave of the House to revert
to Answers to Questions because I would like to respond to a question that was
presented this Question Period? I want to give an update.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave? Is it agreed that the hon.
member have leave to present?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Further to the question that was asked by the Opposition critic as to the
status of the tire recycling program, I would like to inform the House of
Assembly, and I want to take the first opportunity to do it, that we just had
word from the Chairman of the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board that the
contractor, MRL, is going to withdraw from the contract. They have just informed
us through their lawyer, in the last ten minutes, that they are going to do that
officially. I wanted to, at the first opportunity, inform the House that is the
case. We will have an announcement on what we are going to do with the program
and the further details of that in the next couple of days. We will look forward
to seeing the program continue, but I wanted to give that update first to the
House of Assembly.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to respond?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that this program was implemented without
all of the proper infrastructure, without the planning put in place by the
former Minister of Environment, the Member for Topsail. It is unfortunate that
this program was put in place and set up to fail, because that is essentially
what has happened here. This program was put in place. There is a $3 fee being
charged now to consumers. That $3 fee is still being charged. There are no tires
yet being recycled. Tires are piling up in different places throughout the
Province. Retailers are complaining. Previous recyclers, existing recyclers are
complaining. Mr. Speaker, it is very, very unfortunate that the former Minister
of Environment, the Member for Topsail, has set up a program without doing the
proper homework upfront, trying to clean up the scraps later. I seriously have
to wonder if this was put in place as a tax grab on the consumers and it was
designed to fail right from the get-go.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, when the minister stood up I was not sure if
you called Orders of the Day or not but we had another member who wanted to
present a petition. I do not know if it is still on Petitions or what has
happened. I am just looking for clarification.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did call Orders of the Day but we can revert to
Petitions if hon. members will agree.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Government House
Leader as well for allowing us to revert to Petitions.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador:
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full
disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as in duty bound your petitioners
will ever pray.
What the people who have signed this petition are asking for is the same
thing that we, on this side of the House, are asking for, both the Official
Opposition and I believe the members of the New Democratic Party as well. What
we are asking for is that government bring a deal to the House of Assembly prior
to it being binding on the Province, prior to a final deal being signed with a
clause in there allowing us to change any deal that has been brought to the
House of Assembly without any legal recourse back to the Province.
What we would like to see, Mr. Speaker, most importantly of all is that no
nickel concentrate, no ore leave the Province for processing elsewhere. This
resource belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This resource is a
resource that can bring great wealth to this Province, can provide jobs, great
employment to the Province. The people of Argentia, in 1996, were promised a
smelter. The people of Argentia, Mr. Speaker, many people in that area made
financial investments on the premise that a smelter was coming their way.
The people of this Province have seen resource after resource after resource
leave the Province as a raw material to be processed elsewhere. What we do not
want to see is our resource giving benefit to people outside the Province as
opposed to people in the Province. We want the jobs here. If we allow this
resource to leave it is going to create employment in Manitoba. No disrespect to
Manitoba, but Newfoundlanders need the jobs. Newfoundlanders need the benefits
of this resource. If this resource is allowed to leave it is going to create
employment in Ontario. My understanding is both Manitoba and Ontario are
preparing for our ore to extend the life of their smelters. They are preparing
for the employment that our ore will create in both Manitoba and Ontario. We
should be preparing for that; not Manitoba, not Ontario. This is our resource.
We should be the masters of our resource. If that ore leaves this Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. T. OSBORNE: - we will not see that ore in thirty-five years' time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition as well and I will read the prayer now:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative
session convened. The petition to the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
WHEREAS the creation of snowmobile trails originated due to the downturn in
the fishery, especially on the Great Northern Peninsula; and
WHEREAS the money allocated for the snowmobile trails was meant for primary
trails; and
WHEREAS the primary trial system has yet to be completed;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to honour the commitment made to the residents of the Great Northern Peninsula
by completing the primary trial system and enhancing the winter tourism
potential in the area.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, the snowmobile trails came about because of the cod moratorium
and the downturn of the economy in rural Newfoundland. I guess the Northern
Peninsula was hit as hard, if not harder, than anywhere else on this Island, and
it was the Northern Peninsula that was looked at for potential; because from the
Lewis Hills to St. Anthony is great snowmobile country. We saw that as a great
fit to what they were doing in job creation, or a way to turn away from the
economy of the cod fishery that was there. We had spent a lot in summer tourism,
and the need to expand the season was ever so great and was realized; so, it was
put in place. The initial plan was from Lewis Hills to St. Anthony, which was a
very good idea, but it got sidetracked with politics and whatnot. There was a
Premier who decided he needed to buy half-a-dozen groomers and go out there and
display and go all over the place.
So the trail had gone really across the Province, which was the old railway
bed, versus going from the original intent, which was Lewis Hills to St.
Anthony. Today we have some trails system going through there, but the one part
that is left out that is not complete is the Northern Peninsula, and that was
the originate part of this intent.
Today, where we have stumps in some places up to your knees, and brooks that
are not bridged, this area is left out. We cannot go out there and partake in
this industry that is taking off in other parts of the Province, like in Deer
Lake, the hub that has been developed there, and it has great potential, as we
can see from there.
We are being left out up on the Northern Peninsula because they have not
commited to any more monies to complete those trails. Until you can go out of
there and grub, so that you can go out there and get a small amount of snow and
be able to snowmobile early in the season or late in the season, if we cannot go
out there and snowmobile at those points in time, it cannot be viable.
I really would like to present here in the House that option, that they would
make this a viable operation.
I would just like to point out one more time that I wish that you would
consider investing into those snowmobile trails. It is important to the area of
the Northern Peninsula.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition here today, signed by residents of St. John's West and
St. John's Centre. It reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS Inco Deputy Chair and CEO Scott Hand told the company's
shareholders on April 17, 2002, "We hope to be shipping Voisey's Bay
concentrate to Thompson, Manitoba, and Ontario as part of an eventual agreement
reached with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador" and that "We
remain hopeful that the combination of exploration, technology and external feed
will enable us to keep those operations productive and competitive for a long
time to come"; and
WHEREAS we the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, as owners of the
resources of our Province, are worried that our resources will leave the
Province, never to be returned;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full
disclosure and thorough debate by the people who have been elected to represent
us before any final agreement is signed by the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will every pray.
Mr. Speaker, when the residents of those two districts brought me the
petition, they brought it based on information that they are hearing in the
media, and based on -
MR. REID: Propaganda, you mean.
MS S. OSBORNE: I suppose the Member for Twillingate & Fogo - I will
let Mr. Peter Jones, CEO of Inco, know that he stated here today in the House
that what the CEO of Inco is saying is propaganda. Because Mr. Jones did, in
fact, say that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is being more
flexible than ever in negotiations over the development of Voisey's Bay. He
also said that negotiations had certainly moved from the position of the
previous Premier, the Premier who was given a mandate to negotiate on behalf of
the people, so the people are worried. Mr. Jones also said: Obviously, we want
to ship concentrate for as long as possible.
Naturally, the residents of this Province are worried. If the concentrate is
going to be shipped for as long as possible, that could mean until all of the
concentrate is gone, that none of the resources of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador will be used for jobs for the residents.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS S. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will clue up. These residents feel that the government was elected on a
promise that not one spoonful of ore would ever be processed outside this
Province, and they are worried that the government is about to sign a deal that
will allow ore to be shipped to give jobs to the residents of Manitoba, and to
Ontario.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward so much to the motion that I
am about to call, I was tempted to call the Orders of the Day much earlier. I
wanted to give the hon. members a chance to present their petitions, but I
really was looking forward to the next order.
The order, Mr. Speaker, is Motion 1. It appears to me that the Member for
Ferryland is experiencing great linguistic imprecision in terms of expressing
his support for the budgetary policy of the Province.
That is the motion, Mr. Speaker, Motion 1.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Debate.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted to get an opportunity here to have a few words about this year's
Budget. I must say, when you speak about this Budget and you look at the
deficits, it is impossible to talk about it other than loquaciously and in
copious amounts, I might add. It is very difficult but I do want to say, over
what time I have left to speak on this, Mr. Speaker, that I want to talk about
several aspects of this Budget, why they are not so desirable for the benefit of
people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to just spend some time at the
beginning talking about the financial aspect of the Budget and then, Mr.
Speaker, I will get an opportunity to talk about some of the departmental areas
and so on, and some of the various concerns related to this expenditure of $4
billion, a public vote, a vote here in the House on $3.5 billion to be voted
here in this House. It is a significant amount of money, Mr. Speaker, and to
only give casual reference to such a large amount of money would be an injustice
on my part as critic for Finance for this Province, and I do not intend to sell
it short on my time to comment on this Budget that has very significant
implications for the future of people in the Province.
The minister indicated on Budget day, our Province would be seeing a deficit
of $93 million. When she was reading that Budget, there were already many, many
other expenditures going on that are not spoken for in this particular document
that she tabled on that particular day. In fact she has admitted, and she has
admitted publicly, that since that day there are other items not mentioned in
this Budget that she read from that particular day.
I cannot see why a government, if they have any foresight at all and they
know what is happening in our Province, would bring down a Budget one day and
then admit within a matter of days, if not weeks - if it is weeks, it is a very
small number - and admitted it publicly and carried it in the media that it is
higher than we had budgeted; and we have not even approved that Budget today. I
have not seen any amendments moved by this minister to make any changes and to
change the particular vote here in this House while this Budget is under debate.
What we are going to see, Mr. Speaker, over the next several months, outside
the doors of this House, we are going to see special warrants issued. We are
going to see special warrants issued for expenditures that they know are going
to occur, that they did not bring to this House. To me, that is not fair. It is
not giving people up front the full truth.
Mr. Speaker, the projected deficit of $93 million, we knew from day one it
was not an appropriate deficit. In fact, I raised the issue a week before the
Budget. I asked the minister, in this House, if she intended to basically raid
the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund and take $97 million out of that
fund to make her Budget look better. She refused to answer that, and I will get
to that when I talk on other initiatives and issues here. She refused to answer
that, and refusing to answer was an admission of guilt. We found out a week
later that the very issue I raised in this House became fact, and that was read
and announced, Mr. Speaker, in her Budget a week later, when they knew it was
happening. Now, they have been on the defensive ever since trying to justify
something they did that is improper, and I will get to it a little later, what
some of the major institutions and so on had to say about the improper way they
are keeping their accounting and budgeting here in our Province.
That $97 million on top of that $93 million deficit will have given us $190
million they would have had to read in that day in the Budget deficit, not
counting other things I am now going to mention. That does not even count, Mr.
Speaker, the money that they are taking out of Hydro, the $58.2 million that
their Budget did not take out of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro this year. On
top of that $190 million I just referenced they are taking $51.7 million in
deferred revenues; the sinking fund, $28.7 million; they are taking,
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation, $10 million; $10 million in
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing; and another $3 million, basically, from
hydro, from GIP Co, Gull Island Power Company. That adds up to $300 million.
So, on Budget day, we could have admitted right there on the spot a $300
million deficit. We said that on that day, and the Bank of Montreal just said,
on May 8, the senior economist, that $287 million is their actual. So, we were
spot on at about $300 million, and they are saying it is not over yet. They are
not even counting other areas on an accrual basis rather than the cash basis
they are using now. That is an issue I want to get into in a little more detail
a little later. I want to tell you that we are approaching deficits in the
hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker; in the hundreds of millions of
dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to give leave, for a minute, to the
Government House Leader. I think he did want to make a motion there. I wouldn't
really want to keep talking until 5:30 p.m., because if I did, we would have to
go home, wouldn't we, I would say to Government House Leader? We would have to
go home. He forgot to announce that we not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. So, if I keep
the floor here, Mr. Speaker, he cannot get up on the floor to do anything any
different. Maybe I will not give leave, Mr. Speaker. I will speak until 5:30
p.m., I might say, and then we can go home, because I should not be here to make
up for mistakes that they make on that side of the House.
So, I will enjoy my time. I will pass back the little note, Mr .Speaker, and
I will take it under advisement a little later on in the afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, we have a $300 -
MR. REID: Do it, Loyola. Do it.
MR. SULLIVAN: No. I am saying, the Minister of Fisheries knows my
colleagues. I would like to have a couple of more hours to think about that one,
I might add; just a couple of more hours to think on it. At 5:30 p.m., if I am
speaking, under the rules of this House and I have been recognized by the
Speaker - I only have to sit down under points of order, or privilege of others,
not to deal with other issues. I am entitled - if I decide by 5:30 p.m., and the
people in the House would like to come back again at 7:00 p.m. and listen to me
for three more hours, I will give them that option, but if they do not want to
do it, I guess, they can go home and they can enjoy the evening with their
families.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, they can get an early start on the May
24 th weekend. Maybe they can watch the only Canadian team left in the
playoffs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Even though, Mr. Speaker, it is not my team, it is not the
team I cheered for, but it is the only team that is left.
MR. E. BYRNE: Loyola, maybe you should take a ratification vote from the
opposite side. I bet they will support you.
MR. SULLIVAN: I will, Mr. Speaker, before I get back to serious talk on
the Budget. I will ask the members on the government side if they would like to
go home at 5:30 to put up their hand, and I will not give leave. I will ask them
if they want to stay all night. If you want to stay all night, do not put up
your hand. How many would like to stay all night and listen to me for three
hours more? Nobody. How many would like to go home at 5:30?
AN HON. MEMBER: Here.
MR. SULLIVAN: Carried by a vote of 1 to nothing.
Mr. Speaker, their Premier is not here, they cannot make up their mind. They
have to wait for the Premier to come back and tell them if they should put their
hand up or take it down. There is only one put it up. I will not mention his
name. It is not an official count. It is not an official count in this House.
I do not think the Minister of Human Resources and Employment is going to
take a chance on putting two hands up after what he said the last day. I do not
think he is going to take a chance. He was in an opposing position to the
Premier of the Province. The last time a member said that he was not in Cabinet.
The last time a member said that - and I will not make reference to who it is.
He said: We got sandbagged by the Premier. I will not make reference to who it
is. He has never gotten inside the Cabinet door since. I do not know if that is
a vindictive response or what the reason is, and I do know that something has
happened along the way since.
Anyway, I will get back to Budget debate. When you look at our Budget, and
our revenues in the Province, where does it come from? We look at one of the
areas that we have been very strong on here on this side of the House, and we
have raised it so often that they kept driving up the minimum amount on payroll
tax. We have been very strong on that. So, they have gone from $100,000 to
$200,000, gone up to $500,000 exemption now. We have been pushing that issue and
government had to react and do something to raise that, because a payroll tax,
Mr. Speaker, is a tax on jobs. Don't you think that the more jobs are created,
the more employment, the more income, the more taxes, the more retail sales tax,
HST we are going to get, the more taxes, whether it is automobile licences or
whatever it may be, the more luxury items bought, that we are going to take in
more revenue for our Province; or whether it is in various other forms of
taxation. Why do you have to tell companies in this Province, many of them only
small, medium-sized companies, that they have to pay a tax on jobs? It is not a
very good way to stimulate the economy of our Province.
The minister has even said before: The reason we are not going to reduce
income tax in the promised installment last year is because we cannot afford to
do it. She said: Small amounts are not going to stimulate the economy. Well,
small amounts add up to large amounts and you have to start somewhere, because
it is a progressive improvement. It is not something that you just hit this
point in income tax break and it drops over the edge or the economy goes up, it
is a gradual thing. The more money into stimulating the economy, the better the
response. It is a progressive thing. You know, if you increase A, you get a
result in B. It is gradual. An all or none principle does not apply to
stimulation of the economy. It is something that is of a progressive nature.
Mr. Speaker, over half the payroll tax in this Province, over half the money
that we are taking in in payroll tax in this Province, comes from government
itself. In other words, we tax ourselves and we take in the revenue ourselves to
spend. That is what we are doing. So, there is money coming out of our pocket
and going into the government's pocket. It is a no net gain. It is a cycle and
there is no basic increase, I might say, or benefit to the Province by taxing
yourself. I just cannot see it.
Payroll tax here is showing as $84.5 million for next year. Out of that, over
half of that is coming from provincial and federal sources. Forty-two per cent,
I might add, is coming from provincial sources, 9 per cent from federal sources,
others, like municipal, 2 per cent, and businesses in this Province, 47 per
cent. The money we are taking in now - we could say the payroll tax is roughly
$40 million being paid by business and the rest is paid by government. We are
taxing ourselves and there is no benefit. That is something that needs to be
looked at in the elimination of payroll tax in the stimulation of the economy
and jobs. Payroll tax is a disincentive on growth in our economy.
If you looked at, this year, in our provincial sources of revenues - if
economy is growing as government is saying, if the economy is so prosperous, Mr.
Speaker, the economy is growing so well, shouldn't our own provincial sources
of revenues be increasing? Shouldn't we be taking in more provincial money?
Can someone tell me why our provincial sources of revenue are not increasing if
our economy is so good?
In fact, if they did not rob the Labrador Transportation Initiative, if they
did not take the money out of that fund this year, in revenues in our Province,
this year, we would have taken in - in fact, we have taken in this year, $57
million less into our provincial coffers than came in last year; $57 million
less. We cannot count the Labrador Transportation Initiative because that is
going from a fund, a pot, into our provincial revenues. That is to make it look
better, make our bottom line look better. You do not fool anybody in doing that,
certainly you do not fool the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and you have
not fooled the people of Labrador by raiding our Labrador Transportation
Initiative Fund.
Mr. Speaker, the growth in our economy: If the economy is growing shouldn't
we be getting more money in income tax? They are not proposing a cut in income
tax. This year we are proposing to take in $1 million less, from $612 down to
$611 than we took in last year. If the economy is growing and jobs are
increasing, why are we getting less income tax in our Province, if we did not
change the rate and we are not putting it down this year? Why? Why are we
getting less? If more people are working, why are we getting less? Because they
are getting lower income, our exemptions are cancelling out any taxes they have
to pay and there are more people in a lower level of income; more workers, but
not more disposable income. I will get to that in another point on what the
disposable income is.
I am sure the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs can agree with me
on that one. If we are taking in less money this year in taxes than last year,
if we are taking in less money this year in taxes than last year, why are we
doing that, if the economy is so great?
I might add that in three, I think, of the last four years we have led the
country in GDP growth; certainly the third time in five years we have led the
country, and we are looking at our employment level as going up. If the
employment level is going up, why isn't our personal disposal income going up?
There must be a reason for it, I might add. There has to be a reason for it, and
there is a reason for it.
I just want to look at what this government has forecasted over the last
number of years and what we actually achieved in debt. Mr. Speaker, if you look
back at 1999, this government said: We are going to have a $33 million deficit.
That is what they said in 1999. That was under this mandate.
MR. BARRETT: What about 1988?
MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is
wondering about 1988. I will get back to the debt and things back then if he
wants me to get back to it. I will give him some statistics and figures to show
that, in due course. I will just ask him to stay tuned. I will give him all the
statistics he wants but I want to get these valuable points out, I might add, so
that government could probably, in the next Budget, come clean.
I will tell you, a PC government will do an accrual method of accounting and
they will present in a budget the actual deficit of this Province be it $2
million or $2 billion. It will be presented as a budget on Budget Day so people
can know what the real proposed deficit of the Province is. What is wrong with
telling people the truth? Is there anything wrong with it? There is nothing
wrong with telling the truth to the people of the Province. If it is not good
news, and it is the truth, well tell it anyway. Why do we only want to tell
people good news? I think we should tell them all news and let them be the
decision-makers on whether it is good or bad. Why, in 1999, did this government
tell us we are going to have a $33 million deficit and we had a deficit of $187
million? Why did they tell us in the 1999-2000 year that we were going to have a
deficit of $33 million and we had a deficit of $269 million? Then he turned
around in 2001 and said the deficit was going to be $34 million and the deficit
came out to be $350 million.
Now this past year, the deficit, he told us again, was going to be $33
million. Just this year, ending March 31, 2002, it was going to be $33 million,
and what do you think it is going to be? When it is all added up and you look at
the consolidated basis, the accrual method of accounting - when you look at the
assets, liabilities and net position in our Province, what do you think it is
going to be for this year? In the hundreds of millions of dollars. I predict it
is going to be closer to $500 million than what government budgeted. We will
find out this in due course when it is tabled in November and see who will be
closes to it. They predicted the year before it was going to be $34 million and
it was $350 million. I mean people in the industry, economists and so on, are
saying that it is not a true budget. We are not getting the truth. This year
they are telling us it is going to be $93 million; in this year we are in right
now. It was $33 million last year and we do not know what the final tally is but
it could be close to $500 million. Now they are telling us $93 million. Well,
obviously it is going to be very, very significant; the deficit for this year.
Mr. Speaker, we have to be very cognizant of our financial situation because
the more debt we have - obviously if we do not have the revenues we have to
borrow more money. If we have to borrow more money we will have more interest.
People are talking about what we put into the health care system the past number
of years. The second biggest payment out of the Treasury of this Province goes
on interest on the debt. The second biggest payment goes to pay interest on the
debt, and that is significant, I might add; up in the hundreds of millions. I
think it is about $600 million, I believe, for paying the debt. We spend more
money on paying interest on what we owe to the bondholders and into Canada
Pension Plan, in the areas where we have gone on the market to borrow. We pay
more money to interest on them than we pay into education in our Province. We
pay more in than we pay into every single road and ferry service in our
Province. More than we pay into the whole fishing sector. This is only a
minuscule budget. It is a fraction of the budget, only about one-sixtieth in
fisheries what we - to run the department that we pay on servicing the debt of
our Province. We can see it is minuscule, it is only a fraction. We pay enormous
amounts of money in this Province on paying interest on the debt, and our debt
keeps climbing. I am going to look at that in a few minutes, look at what the
debt is and it is climbing and the financial implications it has on the bottom
line, I might add, of our Province.
Our economy in terms of gross domestic product has been growing, in terms of
GDP, but GDP is not an appropriate measure in our economy, and I will take up
that in a few minutes. First, I want to say that some of the biggest
contributors to the gross domestic product of our Province is, basically, the
service producing industry. Now gross domestic product is really the value of
the goods and services produced in our country, the total value. If you have a
quantity of something and there is a certain price attached to that - you have
so many barrels of oil at a certain price and add it up, that is a dollar value.
It is the same with any other goods, they all have a dollar value. They are all
totaled up, and that is the GDP.
Back in the year 2000, for example, our GDP, the total industry, was about
$11.3 billion of which the service industry then accounted for $7.6 billion of
that. About 70 per cent in 2000 of the GDP from total industries was in the
service producing industry. When you look at, for instance, the oil producing
industry today, oil has been the greatest contributor to our increase in GDP but
it is still not close to the largest category in terms of contributing to the
gross domestic product of our Province. In fact, it is only down less than 10
per cent, basically. Back in 2000 it was less than 10 per cent, in the vicinity
of around 8.-some percent but since then there has been some increased percent
applicable to the oil industry because that industry has turned out more
production. Even though the price has fluctuated somewhat, it is still a
significant contributor to the economy of our Province.
When you look at GDP, it is not the most accurate measure in our Province at
all. There are other areas that we need to look at, but just to show with the
number implied - we will just look at the dollar value. I just scratched these
down out of my head, I am sure some might correct it with more specific,
accurate figures right to the button, but the number of people employed in the
fishery in our Province is in the vicinity of over 20,000 people, and it
contributes about a $1 billion in sales to our Province; agrifoods, about 4,000
people and contributes about $500 million to the economy of our Province;
forestry employs about 8,000 and contributes about $640 million; mining, about
3,000 and that contributes about $1 billion into our provincial economy; tourism
about 25,000 people. There are more involved, basically, in tourism now than
there is in the fishery in our Province but we know they are only seasonal, even
though the fishery, to a great extent, is seasonal also, and that contributes
about $550 million. It is growing. It has tremendous potential and I am going to
talk about the tourism sector a little later and the opportunities for our
Province. Manufacturing, about 7,000 jobs and $500 million contribution. These
are significant contributors, I might add, to our provincial economy. It is
important that we, certainly, continue to try to improve, expand jobs in those
sectors there and increase employment in the future to ensure the growth of our
Province, enable more people to stay home, more money into the coffers of our
Province and more money to distribute into health, education and other social
areas as well as into infrastructure in our Province.
To give an example, when we looked at the devastation that hit our Province
back in 1992 with the closing of the ground fishery, it wasn't a surprise to
anybody who has been involved and are familiar with the fishing industry, that
has been in decline for some time. This decline was noted in northern parts of
our Province much before it hit more southern areas of our Province. Farther up
in our northern areas, 2J, 3K and those areas, it started to experience declines
in groundfish much earlier, right down from Labrador down to White Bay, Notre
Dame Bay, Conception Bay, Bonavista Bay, Trinity Bay and right on through. Even
the year the moratorium was announced, in 1992, in the area 3L - off my
colleague's district there, the Member for Bonavista South, that is the cutoff
point there. It is in his district. We saw a fairly lucrative, in the lower
part, the Southern Avalon, the area of my district, we saw a fair amount of cod
being caught even the year before the moratorium. It hadn't really impacted as
much. They had some good year's fishing and people invested heavy dollars into
the fishery that year to gear up again, traps and fishing gear, and then the
moratorium was announced. They not only didn't get to fish, but they had spent
thousands and thousands of personal investment in it when the fishery shut down.
In 1991-92, UI to this Province was one of the biggest sources of revenue
into our Province. There was over $950 million that came into our Province in
EI, or UI then it was called back in 1992. That was a tremendous amount of
revenue. As the years went on - and I will just make reference to some of the
more recent ones. I do not have the accurate figure today but we saw that
decline go to $931 million; the following year down to $782 million in 1993-94.
In 1995, it came down to $654 million, and today, I believe - someone could
correct me on this if I am wrong and I don't have the most current figure. It
is more in the vicinity of about $400 million today coming into our Province in
EI benefits. Nobody takes great pleasure in saying it is a major source of
income in our Province. The best source of income we want to see coming into
households in our Province is coming in from employment and from jobs.
We have to accept the fact that we are living in an area of this country
where there are seasonal industries. The same as people in Western Canada, the
farmers, primarily their income stems from the spring of the year until the
fall. In our Province, we are in a seasonal economy. The fishery is a seasonal
economy. Certain areas of agriculture are seasonal. Other areas are on a more
year-round basis. Because of the seasonality of our employment, we have to
depend, during certain parts of the year, on employment insurance or
unemployment insurance, as it was called, to give an income to people during the
part of the year in which they cannot fish, provided their income is below a
certain level. If their income is above a certain level, if it is above - it
was, I think, about $39,000. I think it has increased to about $48,000, I
understand, before the clawback now. I think it disappears when you get into the
sixties. My understanding is, you do not get any EI then because you got to the
point where your income is up to a certain level and you are not going to get
supported by the EI system. It was a significant amount.
The biggest adjustment came when the fishery closed. When the fishery closed
in our Province, we found that people had no income. They did not get the work
in 1992 so there had to be a certain program come in - a compensation package
came in to our Province - to be able to compensate them. That was the day when
things changed in our Province and the future prospects changed and people
basically changed their thinking on what we need to do to sustain ourselves in
the future.
Then the federal government came down with an income support package. The
first one was scheduled to be, I think, for just a couple of months period but
it I think it became a five-week period in which they sent a cheque out to
basically everybody involved, initially, to get some cash flow going, because
their EI had run out since May and this was now July, with no income.
After July, what happened then, a program called NCARP. NCARP was a Northern
cod assistance program that allowed people to receive a certain income based
upon their previous two years, basically, in the fishery and their income in the
years 1990 and 1991. After that program ran out - and this was announced. This
ran out in 1994. Brian Tobin was federal minister at the time, then, for this
Province, and they came down with a new package called TAGS: The Atlantic
Groundfish Strategy. This was a five-year program, basically, that would take it
up to May of 1999, in which they anticipated the fishery opening. But, during
the course of this, they realized the fishery was not going to open. They
realized that the mainstay of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador since its
beginning was not going to be the same any more. From the time that John Cabot
came here to this Province and found the waters teeming with codfish, to the
following years in which Europeans came here to fish, to be able to dry their
catch and take it back, we find that things changed.
There has been a dramatic change in our Province since that. The message was
received and people started to realize that we are not going to get back to
where we were. So, the economy of our Province, and the point I make reference
to here, is that while this was going on, the federal government moved forward
to make efforts to make changes, to allow people who were fifty and over at the
time - they were prepared, for anybody who was fifty and over in 1992 - to allow
them to get out of the fishery. Those people who were fifty would be sixty-two
today. If they were fifty-two, they would be sixty-four. If you got to
fifty-three you would be ready to retire today; but this Province said, when we
knew there was going to be no future, no future back in the industry for a lot
of these people, and it was estimated that about fifteen cents on the dollar
would cost this Province, this Province said n