Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 9 May 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 21)
2002-05-09
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 9, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIV No. 21
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The Chair would like to rule on the Notice of Motion given by the Leader of
the Opposition.
On May 7 th the Leader of the Opposition stood to give notice that
he would move that the House, in accordance with Standing Order 81(4)(
a) of the
House of Commons extend the time for consideration of the Estimates of the
Department of Mines and Energy beyond May 13 th .
Our Standing Orders require that the Committees examining the Estimates put
all questions needed to carry the subheads of each head of expenditure at the
conclusion of fifteen sitting days from the reference of the Estimates to them.
That is Standing Order 75(1). This time will have elapsed on Monday, May 13 th
The Leader of the Opposition bases his request on Standing Order 1(2)(
b) of
our Standing Orders which deals with the application of the Standing Orders in
cases not provided for in our own Standing Orders. Standing Order 1(2) states:
"In all cases not provided for in these Standing Orders or by sessional or
other orders of the House, the Speaker shall be guided by the following
in the order in which they are stated: (
a) the usages customs and precedents of
this House; (
b) the Standing Orders and sessional orders and forms and usages,
customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and those of any other
province or territory in Canada."
It is the view of the Chair that the purpose of this Standing Order is to
provide a guide for the Chair in interpreting our own Standing Orders, usages
and precedents in cases where there is doubt.
It is not, in our opinion, intended to give the House or Members of the House
flexibility to adopt the Standing Orders of other jurisdictions which have
practices different from our own. There are many practices and rules in the
House of Commons and elsewhere which differ from our own. It would not be
practicable or reasonable to interpret Standing Order 1(2) as the hon. member is
suggesting.
In respect of the time frame for dealing with the Estimates, the House has
adopted a standing order which is quite clear. There is no need to resort to the
Standing Orders or practices of any other jurisdiction for its
interpretation.
The Chair is therefore of the opinion that the Notice of Motion given by the
Leader of the Opposition is out of order as it is based on an erroneous
interpretation of Standing Order 1(2).
The effect of this motion is to institute an amendment to our Standing
Orders. The House does introduce such amendments from time to time, and most
recently in 1999. The usual method of amending the Standing Orders is for the
House to commission the Standing Orders Committee to review the rules and make
recommendations, and if they decide an amendment is in order, they will do that.
The Leader of the Opposition or any member, of course, is free to pursue this
avenue to bring about any changes he considers desirable.
Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to introduce in
the Speaker's gallery today and welcome these people to the House of Assembly,
Elvind Reiten, President and CEO of Norsk Hydro in Norway; and Morton Ruud,
President -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Morton Ruud, President of Exploration and Production
International with Norsk Hydro in Norway -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: - and Mr. Torgeir Opdahl, President of Norsk Hydro Canada -
Oil & Gas in the Calgary office.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: As well I would like to welcome to the gallery today
fifty-five Grade 7 students from Classes 702 & 704 of St. Paul's
Intermediate School in the District of Gander, and they are accompanied by
teachers: Wayne Walsh, Bob Sinnott, and Marie Matheson.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House of Assembly today to
congratulate an exceptional young lady for a recent achievement and indeed, to
commend her for displaying an excellence in all of her endeavours.
From her early childhood, Meghan Farrell of Marystown has brought pride to
her family, her school, her church and her community through her singing at most
community functions, her volunteer activities and her high academic standards.
This past month, Meghan displayed an ability, strength and determination at a
time of great sadness and trauma in her life. Just prior to Easter, Meghan's
father, Frank Farrell, died suddenly here in St. John's. As a matter of fact,
Frank had driven to St. John's with me for a doctor's appointment a few days
previous and had intended to return home with me on Friday. He died in his sleep
early that Friday morning.
Meghan was the pride of her parents, Betty and Frank's lives, and her
intended homecoming gift for him that weekend was sharing the excitement of
having won the Father John Murray Fourth Degree Knights of Columbus Assembly
speakoff in Marystown.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, Meghan won the provincial Knights of Columbus
Speakoff that was held in Gander. My colleague, the hon. Sandra Kelly, was
present for that event and she tells me that Meghan's delivery of her speech
was phenomenal in every way.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Meghan on this accomplishment and I sincerely
wish her success in all of her endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I rise to offer congratulations to a gentleman
and friend who this evening, at a ceremony at the Holiday Inn will be named by
the Newfoundland and Labrador Region of Red Cross as this year's recipient of
the Association's Humanitarian Award.
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Myrle Vokey epitomizes the true spirit of volunteerism. A
few months ago, he was the recipient of the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer
Medal. On the back of that medal, in Latin, is written "Not for oneself,
but for others".
For those of us who have had the pleasure of working and interacting with
Myrle Vokey, we all agree that this inscription clearly summarizes the
commitment and dedication he has demonstrated to his community, to his Province,
to Canada and to the world.
Dr. Myrle Vokey has received the Canadian Medal of Honour for Volunteering
and has also received awards from the United States, Venezuela and Korea.
The outstanding contributions Dr. Myrle Vokey has made to the Canadian Red
Cross have been recognized not only through the Distinguished Service Medal he
received earlier, but also as a recipient of the highest award of the Society,
the Order of Red Cross. An outstanding leader, Myrle Vokey has served at the
grassroots level and as President of the Red Cross in Newfoundland and Labrador.
From 1993-1995, he was elected as the first and only Newfoundland person to
serve as National President of the Canadian Red Cross. In that capacity, Myrle
represented Canada and made countless presentations at international meetings
and conferences in North and South America, Europe and the Far East.
Born and educated on Bell Island, Dr. Vokey attended Memorial University, the
University of New Brunswick, and holds a doctorate from the University of
Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, Myrle Vokey is a remarkable individual, known for his leadership
qualities, his musical talents, his compassion and his sense of humor. Myrle
Vokey describes himself as "an ordinary person", but the Red Cross and
all of us would describe him as "an ordinary person doing extraordinary
things".
As a person who has spent so much of his life promoting mutual understanding
and friendship amongst all people, he exemplifies the true spirit of humanity.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending
congratulations to that young fellow from Bell Island who has touched so many
lives so positively and so consistently, and who is so deserving of all the
accolades he will hear later this evening at the awards ceremony.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform members of this hon. House of several events being
initiated in Corner Brook as part of National Forest Week, May 5-11.
As members are aware, Corner Brook has been designated this year's Forestry
Capital of Canada by the Canadian Forestry Association - a designation, Mr.
Speaker, that recognizes a community which is noteworthy because of its
commitment to and its dependence on its forest resources.
A key component to Corner Brook's bid for designation as Forestry Capital
of Canada was its proposed legacy project, a project which outlines plans from
an extension to the C. C. Loughlin Elementary schoolyard naturalization project.
A second component of its successful bid was the proposed McTree initiative,
which will see more than 2,300 books distributed to Kindergarten to Grade 6
students throughout the entire Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
congratulating the Corner Brook Forestry Capital committee's planned events
for National Forestry Week, not only in the City of Corner Brook but also
throughout the entire Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in the early 1900s, Industry Canada, along with
their founding partner, the Telephone Pioneers, created an organization called
Computers for Schools. Their objective is to collect, repair and refurbish
donated surplus computers from government and private sector to distribute
freely to schools and libraries.
Recently, Computers for Schools delivered a large shipment of 264 computers
to the Avalon West School District offices in Spaniard's Bay. Those computers
came from the national Computers for Schools depot in Hull, Quebec, with help
from a few local companies organized by Mr. Clarence Gosse.
Kindergarten students from Holy Redeemer Elementary in Spaniard's Bay were
invited for the arrival of the merchandise. Their school received a total of six
of these available computers.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
Computers for Schools operation on a job well done. They have become a very
successful service that will most certainly provide students with valuable
technology.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to update the House
of Assembly on the status of government's municipal infrastructure programs.
As members are aware, a three-year $261 million municipal infrastructure
program was announced with the recent Budget.
Mr. Speaker, approximately $108 million was targeted to be spent under a
Multi-Year Municipal Capital Works Program. Projects under this program are
cost-shared on a 50/50 basis with municipalities. I am happy to report that we
are now in the process of negotiating multi-year agreements with fourteen
municipalities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what my critic in the Opposition
has implied, this funding is not being allocated on the basis of politics nor
quarterly polling. In fact, over $68 million has been targeted for seven towns
or cities which are, either in whole or in part, within the electoral districts
held by members of the Opposition parties.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery about the timing of the
announcements. These announcements occur around the same time every year. The
dates for the past three years are: in 1999 - May 18; in 2000 - May 26; and in
2001 - May 7.
Mr. Speaker, the construction season is upon us. The towns are anxious to
proceed, and the construction industry is anxious to get the work. I would
challenge anyone to identify a city or town on our project list which does not
legitimately need this multi-year capital works funding.
Mr. Speaker, we are also moving forward with implementation of the two other
components of our $261 million capital works program. Projects to be funded
under the $63 million Municipal Capital Works Program are now being finalized,
and announcements will be forthcoming shortly. We are also in the process of
consulting with our federal colleagues on $90 million worth of projects to be
funded under the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program over the next three
years.
Mr. Speaker, the municipal share of capital costs for water and sewer
projects will continue to be determined in accordance with our Variable
Cost-Sharing Guidelines. This allows all towns to participate in the capital
works program by establishing cost-sharing ratios on the basis of ability to
pay. In some cases, the Province will pay up to 90 per cent of project costs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, this is an innovation in municipal
infrastructure financing of which I am quite proud.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to emphasize that municipal
infrastructure funding in the Province is allocated on the basis of need and
sound engineering advice. I can say without reservation that every town which
gets a project, needs it.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Usually I would thank the minister for giving me an advance copy of his
statement. I guess, with the dig he had in on me today, he wanted to wait until
the last minute to pass it over so I could read it. Actually, I didn't even
read it. I just listened to what the minister just said.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I can say with no doubt that I am glad that any
community that needs this funding gets it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this started off and
it all started to rollout; two Liberal members made their big announcement. I
hope he is going to give the courtesy of all members being able to announce it
in their districts. We will see, at the end of the day, where it all falls out
and where the funding goes to. But, Mr. Speaker, more importantly, he said
fourteen communities - this is for the bigger communities, bigger municipalities
throughout the Province. My big concern, and we will all be watching very
closely, is the smaller communities of this Province who have the desperate need
to make sure that it goes to the places that need it the most, because the truth
is -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: The truth is, Mr. Speaker, a lot of municipalities need it.
The truth is that it has fallen far behind when it comes to municipal
infrastructure in this Province; when people have sewer in their ditches and on
a boil order for twenty years, Mr. Speaker, that is where the need lies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: I will finish by saying this, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my
judgment when the entire lot is rolled out and we will see who gets it and who
needs it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I should say his
hybrid statement, Mr. Speaker, because it is part statement and part rebuttal to
the Official Opposition.
I would like to say that every community in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is in
desperate need of funding for infrastructure programs. My district received
funding this year, funding that they desperately needed for things that they
have to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I say that the timing is important because the
construction season in many areas of this Province is very short indeed and the
sooner the funding gets released the quicker the work can be done.
As for the elections and the timing of this announcement, Mr. Speaker, with
the elections that are taking place in the Province, I would just like to remind
everybody in the House that we are in politics.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education is sponsoring a forum
to deal with the problem of bullying in schools. Unfortunately this
inappropriate behaviour by a minority of students impacts negatively on the
whole school community in which it exists.
This government is committed to providing quality education for our students
and this is demonstrated, for example, by our investment in new schools and
support of professional development for teachers. However, we also have a
responsibility to ensure that the school community is an environment built on a
premise of respect for all, where hostility and threats are non existent.
The conference will be held in St. John's on May 30. It will bring together
representatives from our school boards, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'
Association, the Federation of School Councils, other government departments and
the Safe and Caring Schools Advisory Committee, which includes representation
from our police forces. We are also inviting educational psychologists, guidance
counsellors, teachers and students. The conference will look at interventions
currently in place to deal with bullying and investigate other effective and
innovative ways to stop those who bully and discourage these acts of violence.
We must build a shared action plan that can be implemented as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, schools are more than books and buildings. Schools are places
where students, teachers and staff spend much of their time. Schools are places
where children should learn and grow and excel. Schools should be welcoming
places. Regrettably, this is not so for some children. Taunting and teasing
damages the self confidence of a child; pushing and hitting hurts a child.
Sticks and stones do break your bones and names do hurt you. Unfortunately, this
behaviour exists in our classrooms and on the playground. We are fortunate that
students in this Province have not met the fate of others in this country where
a child took his life rather than return to school to face more bullying from
fellow students.
I recently had the pleasure of attending a celebration, with my colleague the
Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, Mr. Jim Walsh, designating
Leary's Brook Junior High as a member of Peaceful Schools International. It is
the only junior high school in the world to receive this designation. I commend
the administration, staff and students for making this happen.
Mr. Speaker, we are taking action now to stop violence and encourage an
environment of peace in our schools. Cultivating an atmosphere of respect and
tolerance in our schools will promote a culture of peace in our society.
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.
I am sure I speak for this side of the House in certainly agreeing with the
minister that there is a serious problem in our schools relating not only to
bullying but to violence and other related problems. Any initiative, Mr.
Speaker, that this government can put in place to address that is certainly
welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: But there is a caution, and I say to the minister that I
certainly was involved in the school system for something like twenty years and
I have seen the effects of bullying. The physical aggression, the social
alienation, the verbal aggression, the intimidation and often, minister, at
those that are most vulnerable in our schools. I also know, minister, that there
have been a number of forms, a number of papers throughout the 1990s that the
initial Williams report called for a forum to get everyone together to address
this particular problem.
So, I say to the minister, I welcome this forum but I would more welcome an
action plan, a plan from this government that would ensure that schools like
Leary's Brook, the program that they have is a universal program throughout
this whole Province. I reference, minister, the New Brunswick Government -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: - who, in 1999, did an action plan that certainly needs to
be looked at, and one that I would like to see our government put into practice.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Surely, our consciousness has all been raised by tragic incidents reported in
the media from other provinces related to school bullying and the consequential
tragedies and suicide of some students. It is such an important issue that this
forum, of course, is welcome and the minister referred to a shared action plan
that we must build together out of this forum. I would ask the minister to go
further, that when an action plan is devised that her department see to the
implementation of that plan, provide guidelines, and make them mandatory in
schools. We have lots of pilot projects and lots of initiatives in various
schools, and the Peaceful Schools program is obviously a good example. There are
others in Bishops Field School, and in my own district in Virginia Park School -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: These are examples, and what we should do is devise a model,
have a Province-wide standard and have the Department of Education responsible
to ensure that throughout our school system every child has the protection of a
peaceful school and an opportunity for any incidents of bullying and problems to
be resolved through a proper process.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are on the very important topic of Voisey's Bay, and my
questions are directed to the Minister of Mines and Energy.
Yesterday, Inco announced that it was borrowing some $400 million in U.S.
dollars which is equivalent to approximately $630 million Canadian for capital
expenditures. My question for the minister is: Do the capital projects that Inco
plans to undertake with this borrowing include the development of the mine at
Voisey's Bay and the building of a hydromet facility at Argentia?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That, obviously and clearly, is a question that would be best and most
appropriately and only in an appropriate fashion, be put to the corporation. I
have no mandate to answer questions with respect to capital projects that may be
imminent or planned by Inco as an organization.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will ask a follow-up question to that question. Companies who work in the
heavy construction industry are saying that Inco and its subsidiary, Voisey's
Bay Nickel, are quietly asking companies to bid on construction work at Voisey's
Bay. My question for the minister is: Will the minister let the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador in on what is happening and, perhaps, share with us
some of the details of these invitations and responses by these companies to
these invitations?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Any activity that may be ongoing between Inco and any of its current or
perspective contractors for any current or perspective project, again, are
questions that can only answered by Inco themselves.
I can tell the hon. member this, and I can tell the House again for greater
certainty, that anything with respect to which they may be doing in
contemplation of something happening on the Voisey's Bay project this year, is
being done outside of an arrangement having been successfully concluded between
us, as the government, and them, as the organization, to move that project
forward. Negotiations have not been completed. There are substantial issues
outstanding and until those issues are resolved, anything that they may be doing
in terms of a preparatory nature would certainly be something that they are
doing on their own account and outside of an agreement that sanctions this
project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: I know the minister is saying today and he has said in
the past that there is no agreement with Inco to develop the mine at Voisey's
Bay, but I also know, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has said a couple of weeks
ago that he wants the construction to start at Voisey's Bay as early as this
June. I say to the hon. minister, that is only approximately three weeks away.
Does the hon. minister know if the Premier plans to meet with Mr. Hand in the
near future, and is it possible that on his way back from Houston, that he will
stop in Toronto to meet with the Chief Executive Officer of Inco?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not privy to all of the travel plans or meeting schedules that the
Premier has but I can tell the hon. member this, that the last member of
government who met with Scott Hand was myself as the minister leading the
negotiations on behalf of this project. I can tell the hon. member that the
Premier has no known scheduled meetings with Scott Hand that I am aware of. I
have spoken with the Premier as late as a couple of hours ago, not with respect
to this issue but with respect to other matters of government.
The hon. member should understand that the answers that I have given in this
House with respect to where this negotiation is, with respect to the status of
the negotiations, outline for him and for the people of the Province the exact
circumstance and position we are currently in with respect to this project. The
project has not been sanctioned. There are issues to be concluded. There are
pieces of work to be done, as I understand it, between Inco and some of its
other partners; and we have alluded to them. The Aboriginal Nations had
discussions in Ottawa and there are no current meetings planned, that I am aware
of, between the Premier and Scott Hand, or I would say at this point, between
myself and Scott Hand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. minister, somebody is
getting ready for something.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Inco is borrowing money for capital projects and also
Inco is in the process of soliciting bids for construction work at Voisey's
Bay. We all know, and we have heard it in the past, that the Premier says he
wants work to start on that project as early as June of this year. So, I say to
the hon. minister, either you have a deal or you are about to sign a deal, or
Inco is making one heck of an assumption. My question to the minister is, which
is it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the hon. member, there are more ors' in his question than there
is in Voisey's Bay, I think, if I was counting correctly; or, or, or. Yes, it
is all about ore, Mr. Speaker, I say with great seriousness. It is all about
ore.
To the point of whether or not there will be work starting this June, or
whether or not we want work to start this June; I can tell the hon. member that
I would like to be in the position to announce that work is starting tomorrow
morning. In fact, I would like to be here -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: I would like to be here reporting on the work that has
happened for the last two years, but the fact of the matter is, we do not have a
project. It has not started. It is not up and running yet, and therefore there
is nothing to report on it.
I can say to the hon. member that we are as interested, on behalf and in the
interest of the people of this Province, to see work start in June, if that is
possible, or July, or August, or May, whenever we can get it up and running.
But, before any of that can take place there has to be successful conclusions to
discussions that are still dealing with outstanding issues, and until we resolve
those issues there is no project to report.
I think, Mr. Speaker, in fairness -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: I think in fairness to the people of the Province, and to
the Opposition who have a right and an obligation to ask questions, and we
respect it and we appreciate being able to answer, I think that it is only fair
to say that we have exposed - we have shared probably more with the people of
the Province in a public fashion, with respect to this project, than has been
shared by any other government on any other project that they have been
announcing. We have identified -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: - Mr. Speaker, within a very narrow range, the number of
issues that have to be resolved before we get a project and we hope we can get
it done so that we can all benefit on behalf of the constituents that we all
serve in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, my final question.
Based on what the minister has just said, based on the assumption that the
minister is right and that there is no deal, does that mean that the Premier's
startup date, June's startup date
schedule is simply out the window? Is that
what the minister is saying?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, there is no project yet to announce. There is
no
schedule to throw out the window. There is no
schedule to invite in the door.
There is a prospect that we will get a project; and at what point we get the
project we will be happy to announce, or we will be happy to hear the company
announce: when the project can move forward, the basis on which it is going
forward, how much work will get done, where and when, how much money will be
spent, and what the economic value of all of that will be to the people of the
Province.
That is the bottom line. We are working, we are operating, we have a mandate
to work on behalf of the people of the Province to bring about development, and
we will strive to do that on the account of Voisey's Bay and/or every other
opportunity that presents itself to us on behalf of the people of the Province.
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.
My questions today are for the Minister of Education.
Mr. Speaker, in the early 1990s, in the Williams Report, one of the
recommendations was certainly to give the parents of this Province an equal
share in the governance of this education system, through the establishment of
school councils. It was Dr. Williams who said, "If the school system is to
reach its maximum potential with the resources available, the Commission
believes it is essential to establish the means for effective parent involvement
in the governance of the Province's schools."
Recent comments, Mr. Speaker, by the minister, in the media, on the role of
school councils, have given cause for concern that this promise will not be met.
The minister has criticized the school council federation for focusing on
provincial issues rather than school-specific issues.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Does she expect school councils to simply
ignore issues such as school fees, teacher allocations, curriculum concerns,
public exams, and others? Minister, please.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, for the record, at no time have I been critical of
school councils. At no time have I suggested that they not be involved in
provincial issues. What I have said, Mr. Speaker, is that under the Schools Act,
1997, school councils were legislated into effect. The legislation was very
specific, Mr. Speaker, and it clearly suggested that school councils were to be
school-specific in terms of the issues they dealt with. Everyone knows, and
everyone should be aware, that a lot of the issues that happen in schools are
provincial issues, Mr. Speaker, and as individual school councils deal with
school-specific issues, obviously they are dealing with provincial issues, and I
encourage them to do so. I welcome the involvement of parents in our school
systems, as I have always done. What I said, Mr. Speaker, I reiterated what the
Schools Act, 1997 spells out as the mandate of school councils in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the minister that there are
parents out there who have listened to what she has said, and what she has said
now certainly is not in keeping with what should be done. Parents should be
equal partners in education. Their voices have to be valued as much as any other
voice. I ask the minister: What has changed? Why is it that she feels that
parents should be seen and not heard?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the one thing you learn is that, when you ask a
question and you are given an answer, it is expected that you listen to the
answer. Clearly, the gentleman opposite has questions prepared and does not
intend to listen to any of the answers that are given.
Let me repeat again, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome and encourage parents to be
involved in the education of our children. It is an important component of
ensuring that we have a successful education system in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the involvement of parents.
There has been no Minister of Education who has been more inviting to have
parents in the schools system than this Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: So let me reiterate again, Mr. Speaker, parents are involved in
our school system. We have a significant number of school councils. I would like
to see school councils in all of our schools. Unfortunately that is not the
case, Mr. Speaker, but I would encourage parents to come together with the
principals and the teachers and community leaders and form school councils at
every school in our communities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour
Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: The questions are not
the problem; it is the answers that I am getting back.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the minister that the role of
the school councils is a very, very important one in our education system today.
I ask the minister: How is the role that the minister has in mind for school
councils different from the role of the Home and School Associations of the
past, of the Parent Teacher Associations of the past? Are the school councils of
today expected to simply sell cookies, raise money for an ailing education
system?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the member is right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: The questions are not the problem, Mr. Speaker; it is the
questioner.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: We all know, when we speak to our children, Mr. Speaker, how
important it is to listen, and it is really important to listen to learn. I
would encourage the members opposite, particularly the Member for Harbour
Main-Whitbourne, to try and listen.
Mr. Speaker, let me say again that under the legislation, Schools Act, 1997,
it clearly spells out the mandate of our school councils and I can share with
the member opposite a booklet, a pamphlet, that has been put together explaining
the mandate of the school councils. It very clearly spells out that they are not
expected to sell cookies; that they are not expected to go fundraising and
having sales within the schools, Mr. Speaker. They are to be involved in
advising school boards on things, matters, within the schools, particularly
academic things, Mr. Speaker.
So, I encourage our school boards -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.
MS FOOTE: - to work closely with our school councils, recognizing that
they have a very important role to play in our education system.
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.
My questions today are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the company that owned and operated the fish
plant in the community of St. Bride's went into receivership. The fish plant
and its assets were taken over to be sold. Yesterday was the deadline for
proposals and tenders from individuals or companies interested in purchasing the
property. My understanding is that several proposals were put forward and a
decision on what is to be accepted will be made within the next few days.
Proposals were accepted on the building and the equipment as a package, and
proposals were accepted on the building and equipment separately. The idea that
the equipment could be sold and shipped elsewhere is of great concern to the
local people. The larger question of what happens to the processing licence is
causing much more concern, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the minister today: Due to the fact that the fish plant did not
process last year, can he tell me today what is the status of the licence for
the St. Bride's plant at the present time? Does it have an active licence and
are all the fees paid up to date?
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, and I thank the member opposite for his
question.
As to whether or not the fees are paid up to date, I will check that in a few
minutes and get back to you on it. Usually, when this happens, Mr. Speaker, the
licence stays with the community, with the plant that is in the community. If
there is somebody else who wants to come in and operate the facility, I suggest
that they put forward a business proposal to the provincial Department of
Fisheries and we will have a look at it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St.
Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, many communities in the areas of Newfoundland and Labrador are
concerned about what the fishery holds, especially as it relates to our fishing
industry. St. Bride's and the Cape Shore area are no different. There is an
understanding that some of the proposals put forward for the St. Bride's fish
plant will include the movement of the licence to another area of the Province.
I would like to ask the minister today: What is the policy and process of the
government in this situation, what involvement will the people of the community
and area have in this process, and what guarantee can he give the residents
today that, regardless of who owns the fish plant next week or next month, the
licence will still remain with the fish plant in St. Bride's?
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, and again I thank the member opposite
for his question.
We do have a policy pertaining to the transfer of licences here in the
Province. Regardless of whether the plant is sold and the equipment is
transferred out of the area, that doesn't mean, Mr. Speaker, that the licence
goes with the equipment. The licence is attached to the facility. The policy in
the provincial Department of Fisheries is that, if somebody comes forward and
asks to have that licence transferred, we have an open and public process
whereby that request for transfer would be advertised in the local paper so that
the residents of the community in question would have the opportunity to have
their views made known to government and anyone else in the immediate area or
throughout the Province, for that matter, would have a say, would let us know
how they feel about the transfer of that licence. At that time, it would be the
department that would decide whether or not the licence would be transferred.
So, I tell the hon. member opposite, that the people in the community he
referenced just then will have ample opportunity, if and when there is a request
for a transfer, to make their position known to government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia
& St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to ask the minister: Will he give a commitment to me today,
and to the people of St. Bride's and the Cape Shore, that the processing
licence for the fish plant in St. Bride's will stay in the community of St.
Bride's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we have a process, like I just explained to the
hon. member opposite, and to say today that the licence will stay in the
community or the licence will be transferred, I just explained the process and
we will follow the process; but, speaking generally, right now I have no desire
to transfer a licence from your community to someone else's in the Province.
We have an abundance of licences in this Province today and it would not be my
intention, obviously, to transfer that licence to somewhere else in the
Province. But, we do have a process and we will abide by the process, and, at
the end of the day, the people in your community will be given the opportunity
to make their case known to me and the Department of Fisheries, and we will make
the decision openly and publicly.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
A couple of weeks shy of a year ago, we passed legislation in this House to
allow for lawsuits against tobacco corporations to recover health care costs.
Mr. Speaker, the Select Committee heard the views of the people of the Province
last winter and it is pretty obvious that the people of this Province support
litigation against tobacco companies and want to proceed. I want to ask the
minister why this legislation has yet to be proclaimed, and why do we not yet
have a lawsuit commenced, a proceeding against the tobacco companies?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act was
indeed passed here about a year ago. Anyone who listened then was aware at that
time - as I am sure the hon. member was - and took
part in the committee,
actually, and made presentations, we have followed this very closely with the
Province of British Columbia, who had a similar piece of legislation. In fact,
they were the trailblazers in this type of legislation in Canada, and they have
had their legislation tested several times for its constitutionality in B.C.,
going right to their Court of Appeal, redrafted a couple of times. They finally
have theirs through. Ours are patterned after them, which took us up to about a
year ago and we got ours enacted but not proclaimed.
We were trying to do this with partners, preferably all ten Canadian partners
if we could, at least. We have been working towards trying to get that
partnership of jurisdictions together because we realize this is a very costly
venture, very much needed, and no doubt a priority in terms of getting it on, in
terms of getting the legislation there, the groundwork to do this. The more
people we have involved, the better it is in terms of cost-sharing.
The thing went off the rails, quite frankly, last year in B.C., because they
had a change of government there. When this initiative started in B.C., it was
pushed by the NDP government at that time, but when the Liberal government came
on we were not even sure if they were going to proceed with it as an initiative.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. PARSONS: That took several months and they have indeed now gotten
back on board and confirmed their commitment to this initiative, and we are
having our ongoing dialogue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister indicated, the NDP government of British Columbia issued a
lawsuit on January, 2001, after they enacted new legislation that ours is
patterned after. We are well behind that now, Mr. Speaker, a year and three
months later.
I want to ask the minister whether or not he is aware that the World Health
Organization offered expertise and advice to countries planning to take the
tobacco companies to court. Has the minister taken them up on that in terms of
expertise, and is this litigation dependent on British Columbia or are we
prepared to proceed with this litigation to get up to speed, to have it happen
sooner rather than later, Mr. Speaker, because this has been promised for some
years now.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, it is a priority or it is an
intention of government to pursue this initiative with or without British
Columbia. We do, however, feel it is most prudent: the more people we have doing
this against the intended defendants in this case, which would be the tobacco
companies, the better it is from a research perspective and from a cost
perspective.
We are talking about a multi-million dollar lawsuit here. We have limited
resources, as a Province. We will use them if we have to, but we would like to
be prudent if we could. The more people we have on board here, in way of other
provinces, that will make the burden much easier when it comes to our fiscal
needs to contribute to this most worthwhile venture.
We are, at the deputy minister level, having at this time discussions with
other deputy ministers in Canada, and hopefully they will be coming on board as
well. As soon as we can determine who is, in fact, on board, we will be pursuing
the initiative.
That ties in as well to the first question. You asked why it was not
proclaimed. There is a strategic reason why it has not been proclaimed to date.
I am sure the hon. member, being a solicitor, is aware that there are sometimes
strategic reasons why, from a legal perspective, you might not proclaim a
certain piece of legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr, Speaker.
My questions is to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
Minister, the Bonavista Peninsula has suffered severe economic devastation
since the closure of the Northern cod fishery in 1992. For the past ten years,
residents have been leaving this area. Businesses are closing and proud,
hardworking Newfoundlanders have had to access social assistance.
Minister, your department was created by your government to promote rural
development, and with that should come rural employment. Minister, surely by now
your government must have some plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask
the minister what his government is proposing to do to help the economic
situation on the Bonavista Peninsula.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this
Administration does have a plan. We had been pursuing a plan. Contrary to my
friends on the other side, who talk about openness and transparency out of one
side of their mouth but have very little to tell on the other side of their
mouth in terms of what their policies might be, we do have a plan.
The hon. Member for Bonavista South knows quite well that, since 1996, there
has been $11.5 million put in his District of Bonavista South alone.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member for Bonavista South also knows that, unlike
days of old when things were dictated from the top down, this Administration's
economic recovery works on from being from the bottom up, the grassroots up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South knows full well that
we have twenty zonal boards in this Province, one of which covers his district.
We leave it to the stakeholders who have the most to gain and the most to lose
and the best ideas, which are the people in these zone boards, in these areas
made up of development associations, Chambers of Commerce, Economic Development
Officers, municipal leaders. They decide what their priorities are. We follow
their direction and their advice and help them where and when we can, which, I
would add, we are doing quite successfully since 1996.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there is nobody in this
House who knows their district or visits their district any more than this
member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: I have yet to see the prosperity that this minister is
putting forward, I can assure you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, let me give you an example. The community of
Sweet Bay has a population of 160 residents. Prior to 1992, 90 per cent of this
community had a job. Today, I say to you, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. FITZGERALD: - five people in that community are fortunate enough to
be able to get up in the morning and go to work.
Minister, this is certainly not acceptable. Would you inform the residents in
communities such as Sweet Bay, when your government's economic policies will
allow them once again to realize a job?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: I would remind the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he
should talk to the Coaker Foundation in his region. Perhaps he should talk to
the people who operate the shrimp plant in his region. Perhaps he should talk to
the people who opened the seal tannery in his region. Perhaps he should talk to
the Town of Bonavista, which has benefitted tremendously from infrastructure and
tourism initiatives in his district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: I stood here in this House about two weeks ago and the
Opposition House Leader asked a question about statistics, and where we are
doing stuff and not doing stuff. I gave statistics at that time. We did not
fabricate these or dream them up off the top of our head. I will repeat them
today for the benefit of the Member for Bonavista South: 24,300 jobs have been
created in this Province since 1996.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: We know everything is not rosy and we are not satisfied with
those numbers. We will not be satisfied until there is zero unemployment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: We did not create those statistics. Statistics Canada
created those. They are not a figment of ours or your imagination.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to present another petition, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue to
presents the petitions as long as the people in my district believe that they
can have their say on the floor of the House of Assembly by presenting
petitions. I am certainly proud to present this one; another different twist, I
guess, to the road situation in the Province.
This is from the community of Nipper's Harbour, which has a long tradition
of fishing and is a productive community, as far as many people employed in the
fishery. The funny thing about this petition today, Mr. Speaker, is that they do
not - they have gravel roads, seventeen kilometers through their community, but
they have given up on asking for pavement. They are just asking that the road be
upgraded because they were told just two day ago, and I tell the minister today,
by the depot on the peninsula - when they asked for a grader to go over it
because there were so many potholes - it was described as a washboard, the road
was - that the depot informed them that there was no good to send over a grader
anymore because there was nothing left to grade. They cannot even send over a
grader and have a decent gravel road anymore, Mr. Speaker. The depot informed
the people on the peninsula, in this particular community, that it was useless
even to send over a grader anymore because they were down to the bedrock. There
was nothing left to grade.
That is how desperate the situations have come with roads in this Province,
Mr. Speaker. I spoke with the town clerk just a couple of days ago who informed
me that the road has deteriorated even more so again this spring; I guess with
the long winter and so on. Now that they have asked for a grader to come over,
they cannot even get that request fulfilled.
So, Mr. Speaker, they have given up in asking for pavement. They have
certainly given up on asking for sidewalks. They are just saying now: Could you
please give us a bit of grade A material to put on the road so that we can get
back and forth there? A lot of heavy trucks go back and forth because, as I said
before, it is a productive community. Many people work in the community,
therefore they contribute to the economy of the Province. It is not a big
metropolis, Mr. Speaker. It is a small community of a few hundred people but
they feel they deserve at least a graded gravel road.
Now that is what they have come to in this Province, Mr. Speaker. They have
come to the realization that they will not get seventeen kilometres of pavement
this year. They do not expect it to be announced this year. Besides that, Mr.
Speaker, the people in this community have to drive over the La Scie highway,
which is another disgrace and probably the most deplorable paved road in this
Province, and the Premier went down over that road himself; I hope he did. He
was down in La Scie just a week ago. I hope he drove down and did not take a
helicopter. I believe he drove down, and I hope he did, because he will see
firsthand, Mr. Speaker, the deplorable conditions. The people in Nippers Harbour
not only have to beat down over the La Scie road but then they have to turn onto
seventeen kilometres of gravel road that cannot even be graded. That is how bad
it has gotten.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about desperate needs in this Province and so on,
this is a situation that is happening around this Province. I understand from my
colleagues who have presented petitions in this House in the last number of
days, that this is all over the Province. It is getting worse and worse. So,
what is really happening now, Mr. Speaker, is people in Nippers Harbour, who
have conditions like this, are now being piled on top of a long list in this
Province who have either old pavement or they have gravel roads.
Like Harry's Harbour, it is the same thing as in my district. Some fifteen
kilometres of gravel road before they get to school for their children, for
example. School buses have to travel over seventeen kilometres of gravel road to
bring kids to school.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is a deterrent. It is certainly unsafe. It is a deterrent
for tourism, people who want to go to some of these beautiful communities.
Nippers Harbour, of course, being one of those. That is where tourists like to
go when they come to see Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, like I said, for the
economy, for the fish trucks that have to go down there to collect the fish to
bring to other plants around the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister to give this some serious
consideration, not for the pavement so much this year but hopefully it will be
done, but at least some grade A material so they have a decent road to travel
over.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to thank my hon.
colleagues here in the House.
The Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report that they have approved, without amendment, the Estimates
and Expenditures of the following departments: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest
Resources and Agrifoods; Mines and Energy; Tourism, Culture and Recreation;
Industry, Trade and Rural Development; and Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, because it is by leave I would just like to thank all members of
the Committee, in particular: the vice-chair, Trevor Taylor; Mary Hodder, MHA;
Ray Hunter, MHA; Roland Butler, MHA; Tom Osborne; George Sweeney; all MHAs, and
I would like to thank the staff of the House of Assembly as well for their due
diligence in allowing us to complete our work on time.
I present this report on behalf of the Committee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
On motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, by leave as well, under Reports.
I had committed to the hon. Member for Trinity North to table in this House
the budgets for the institutional boards, the Health and Community Services,
Newfoundland and Labrador Cancer Treatment Research Foundation and the St. John's
Nursing Home Board. I would like to do that at this time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is that it for the reports?
The hon. the Member for Labrador West, on a petition.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador
West. The petition reads as follows:
WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up with $347.6
million from the federal government for transportation in Labrador; and
WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act requires that money
in the fund be used for the maintenance of marine and ferry services to
Labrador, construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and other initiatives
related to transportation in Labrador; and
WHEREAS the Liberal government announced in the 2002 Budget that $97 million
would be taken out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, and added to
the general revenues of the Province to be used for purposes outside the Act.
We the undersigned petitioners hereby petition the House of Assembly to
direct the government to immediately put this money back into the Labrador
Transportation Initiative Fund to be spent on transportation initiatives in
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the previous petition that was presented by the Member for Baie
Verte talked about the need for road work all over the Province. That is true.
We have heard in this House on many occasions, members talking about work that
needs to be done in their districts.
In my district, we have 600 kilometres. The Trans-Labrador Highway is 600
kilometres long. All of it is gravel road and much of it is in a complete state
of disrepair. The
section of the highway that runs from the Ashuanipi River to
Esker turnoff, in particular, is hardly a
section of road that you would
consider fit to travel over, particularly at this point in time.
Mr. Speaker, the government stated that they will be doing upgrading to that
section of road. The Minister of Transportation announced in the budget that
they will be spending $800,000 on that
section of road this summer. Well, to my
knowledge, this summer the road work on that
section is only going to cover
about twenty-five kilometres of a
section that is over 100 kilometres long. We
are very concerned about this because there are many people in Labrador who
depend upon that highway to make a living. There are people in other parts of
Labrador who depend upon these truckers to get their goods to their business.
People in Labrador who travel, need that road in a good condition so that it is
safe for public transport. Not to mention, Mr. Speaker, the negative impact that
a bad road such as this one has upon the tourism industry.
I stated earlier in this House about tourists that I met last summer who had
trailer-hitches broken off their vehicles while travelling through Labrador on
that
section of highway. They told me at the time that they really, really
enjoyed their trip to Labrador. They enjoyed the people that they met. They
enjoyed the things that they did but they would never, ever recommend to any of
their friends that they come to Labrador with their trailers and with their
vehicles as long as the highways are in the state of disrepair that they are at
the present time.
So, Mr. Speaker, this $97 million that was taken out of the Fund, people of
Labrador believe that it should remain in the Fund. It should be used on
transportation initiatives in Labrador and -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, just to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
People believe that that money could be used as a closer relationship to the
road repair rather than to be put into general revenues.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I continue to get petitions from the people of the Clarenville area with
respect to long-term care services. I just want to read into the record the
prayer from this particular petition:
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced in its
2001-2002 Budget there would be a long-term care facility constructed in
Clarenville and that the Department of Health and Community Services was given
$500,000 to commence the engineering and design work for the said facility; and
WHEREAS in August, 2001, the then Acting Minister of Health and Community
Services and now the current Minister of Health and Community Services, further
confirmed, in a letter to the town of Clarenville, that government had made a
commitment to build a forty-four bed facility in Clarenville and it was expected
that design consultants would be appointed in September, 2001.
The petitioners are asking this government to proceed as promised and proceed
immediately to appoint the consultants and the design people to start the work
on the design and engineering work for the forty-four long-term care beds for
Clarenville.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House many times before, this has been a
long-standing issue for the people of the general Clarenville area and many of
the names - I say Clarenville area because many of the names on this petition
come from a variety of communities. Some of them are included in the District of
Terra Nova. Some of them are included in the District of Bellevue. In fact, some
of them from my colleagues District of Bonavista South. That entire area now
find themselves in a situation where there are no long-term care services.
People of that area have been asking for quite some time - in fact, the first
discussions about long-term care services in that area started in the mid-1980s.
I recall myself, Mr. Speaker, being part of a delegation in 1989, I believe it
was, to come in here and meet with the then Minister of Health and his senior
officials to talk about long-term care service at that point. I had the
privilege of being a part of an organization that, for about six or seven years,
continued to lobby this government for long-term care services in that
particular area of the Province.
So, this is not a new issue. This has not come about as a result of some
changing demographics in the last couple of years. This has been a long-standing
issue for quite some time. There have been a number of studies done that have
confirmed the need, and we have the commitment. This is the irony of this, we
have the commitment, the money is in the Budget, and in fact it was in last year's
Budget. In this year's Budget it was announced again, the same money. It got
announced for the second time. So, it is not a question of identifying a need,
it is not a question of identifying the funding for it; it is an issue of taking
action, following through with the commitment made, following through with the
promise.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I would ask government, and I would urge government, to
live up to its commitment, to honour the commitment it made in the Budget last
year, the Budget this year, and the letter the minister wrote in August, to
honour those commitments. I ask this government now to quickly live up to that
commitment and appoint the engineering and design people to start the design
work so that construction can start as quickly as possible.
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.
Today, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the people of Black
Duck Cove.
To the Honourable House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in
Legislative Session convened:
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS the Black Duck Cove fish plant is the community's only industry and
its closure has resulted in high unemployment in the area; and
WHEREAS shrimp being caught adjacent to the Northern Peninsula is being
trucked twelve to fourteen hours away to be processed, resulting in higher
overhead costs for a poorer quality product; and
WHEREAS the Review of the Cooked and Peeled Shrimp Industry , the
Report of the Inshore Shrimp Panel, recommends that the licensing policy should
encourage processing closer to the resource, and that the transfer of plants
licences closer to the resource should be promoted;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to immediately act upon these recommendations to ensure that this once promising
industry becomes, once again, a viable industry.
And as in duty bound your petitioners every pray.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Black Duck Cove have been saying, ever since this
industry got on the go, that there must be something wrong with how this
industry came to develop itself, that it would be ideally located at Black Duck
Cove with all the experience it has in the fishery, and that they should have an
opportunity to get involved in this industry.
They, of course, started off with a shrimp licence the same as everybody
else, but they never got an opportunity to fully participate in this industry.
They feel that something had to be wrong, and they were recommending that it
made sense for the processing to be close to the resource, as on the Northern
Peninsula where a vast majority of this resource is being landed. They felt that
they should have an opportunity.
This industry has gone off its rails, actually. The panel was recommended
and, of course, they came to the conclusion that the processing was too far from
there. Not only did Black Duck Cove not get an opportunity to get into this
industry, but places like Port au Choix which actually started off in the
industry back in 1969 - actually, they were the only place in this Province that
was processing shrimp. Yet, last year employment was so low in this area that
they ended up having to go to the government to get make-work in order to
qualify. That is how little they have come down. An industry that went, you
know, from 12 million pounds back in 1996 to now having 120, you would obviously
think that this plant and this area would have benefitted from this resource
coming ashore; yet they didn't. Everywhere else came to benefit from this
resource except along the Northern Peninsula where it was the beginning of this
industry, and it seems very unfortunate that this industry had to take this
route to go and be forced in different areas.
I think this industry has gone off to the point where -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. YOUNG: As rumour has it, this industry may close down in June of this
year and it is because this industry has been so poorly designed and has gone
political verses practical. I think this Province needs every bit of practical
decision-making possible.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I once again put forward a petition. The prayer of the petition reads as
follows:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament
assembled:
The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:
We, the undersigned citizens of the Cape Shore area, hereby draw your
attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route
100-Cape Shore;
WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of
the Highways Safety Act to protect its citizens not only from commuters but also
from unsafe highways; and
WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority
of any government;
THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding
to carry out the much-needed repairs to Route 100.
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, numerous petitions have been sent to me from the people of the
Cape Shore area, most commonly in the communities of Branch, Point Lance, St.
Bride's, Cuslett, Angel's Cove, Patrick's Cove, Ship Cove and The
Barasway. These petitions have been put forward to me because of the deplorable
road conditions that now exist on Route 100 and on Route 100-16, which is
commonly known as the Point Lance access road.
Mr. Speaker, the first pavement most of these roads saw was in 1979.
Especially the road from the top of Cuslett lookout up into the community of
Branch and down into Point Lance seems to be the most deplorable road in that
area. We had some recapping carried out last year in Branch country and in some
places on the Cape Shore. It was certainly much needed. There are several others
places in my district that need road work: the community of Ship Harbour, Fox
Harbour access road, the road through the Town of Placentia, out the Cape Shore,
as this petition touches on, in through St. Mary's Bay, just outside the
community of North Harbour there is much need for repairs to be carried out,
down through St. Mary's Bay, through the Town of Mount Carmel, right down from
St. Catherine's on down to Peter's River.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the confines of the Department of Works, Services
and Transportation, and the fact that somewhere around $25 million has been put
aside this year to look at the Provincial Roads Program. I understand there is a
need somewhere in excess of $300 million, that the minister has on his desk at
the present time, and not everybody is going to get what they are looking for.
These people in this area put forward this petition because especially the
road from the community of St. Bride's over to Branch is absolutely
deplorable. It is in an unsafe condition. I heard a lady on the Open Line show
the other night talking about busting up a tire on the way to St. Bride's and
on the way back also, Mr. Speaker. I drive over that road several times during
the week and it is certainly something that needs to be done and needs to be
addressed.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MANNING: I hope that the minister, in his wisdom, Mr. Speaker - as I
said, I understand the confines of the amount of money he has been allotted this
year, but this work is something that needs to done. It needs to be addressed
for the safety of the public, Mr. Speaker. There are buses that travel over this
road every day, from the communities of Point Lance and Branch over to Fatima
Academy in St. Bride's. There are emergency vehicles, the ambulance,
travelling back and forth, and it is a very unsafe condition. Hopefully, by
presenting these petitions here in the House on behalf of the people who have
sent them in to me, Mr. Speaker, the minister will take into consideration the
concerns of the people in that area and will hopefully come up with some dollars
to look at making improvements.
Mr. Speaker, we are not looking for roads paved with gold. What we are
looking for is just some recapping done to make the road conditions safe.
Hopefully by raising these petitions in the House, reminding the minister of the
unsafe conditions that are out there on Route 100 and Route 100-16, Mr. Speaker,
that the minister will take into consideration the petitions and will do
whatever is necessary and whatever is in his power to address some of these
concerns that the people have raised.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today we are doing Bill 6. I move that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 6.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!
Just to remind the House that we are on Bill 6, and we are still on the
resolution to Bill 6.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just rise today briefly to review. I think it is important to let the
people of the Province know particularly that today we are talking about an
amendment to the Income Tax Act, which again is addressing the issue around
dividends, reducing the dividends from 9 per cent to 5 per cent, which will
allow the Province to achieve $3 million. What it does is, it treats
corporations, small business owners and individuals who have dividends in the
same way as if they would draw a salary as opposed to drawing down dividends.
Previously it has been a benefit. It will come into effect as of March 21, 2002.
Any dividends declared prior to March 21, 2002, will be eligible for the 9 per
cent dividend tax credit.
I also think it is important to note that the majority of these, about 75 per
cent of the tax filers with income under 30 per cent, will only affect really
about 10 per cent of all of the dividend holders. Again, I would say this was a
decision that government made - a decision, really, that would focus on people
who would be minimally affected. People who are lower wage earners will have a
much less impact than those who are high income earners; for example, over
$50,000 and even into the thousand and millions, obviously. People who are in
that category will perhaps pay more tax because they will no longer have a 9 per
cent reduction but rather will be decreased to 5 per cent.
Again I would say, Mr. Chair, this is a technical amendment to the income tax
but it is not technical inasmuch as it allows the government revenues of $3
million which we will use for our priorities, as have been clearly been set out
as health care and education for the people of the Province. It is part of our
Striking the Right Balance and moving forward to provide those services for the
people of our Province.
Thank you very much.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, the last day I was debating this particular resolution, I made
note of the fact that the children of this Province have not shared equally in
the revenues and in the decision-making processes that have been announced by
the minister.
When we were dealing with the Speech from the Throne some weeks ago, and I
read through it very carefully, I was expecting some comment there and some
measures to address the issue of child poverty, but I didn't find one single
word - not a single word in the Speech from the Throne - about child poverty.
Children do not seem to matter. Hungry children do not seem to matter at all.
Mr. Chair, we have known for many, many years - studies have been done back
into the 1970s and into the 1980s and into the 1990s, that tell us - that the
issues of child poverty in this Province need to be addressed. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Chair, the minister just said that the measures that she is announcing
today and seeking commission from this House to implement, will bring an extra
$3 million to this Province. Then she said that this will let her and her
government make some decisions relative to spending priorities. Nowhere in her
comments was there one single commitment that they would do anything to address
the issues of child poverty. So, when we talk of all of the economic changes
that have occurred, and when the minister talks about gross domestic product,
and when we talk about all of the issues that indicate that the Newfoundland
economy is growing, and while we are very happy with that, we have to bring to
the attention of the government, that poor children, poor children of this
Province, are not sharing equally in the growth of this economy.
Mr. Chair, since 1989, child poverty in this Province has gone up
consistently. As a matter of fact, in 1989 the rate was the lowest it has been
in the last twenty years. It stood at 19.8 per cent. In no year since then has
the rate been as low as that. As a matter of fact, in the last year, the child
poverty rate in this Province stood at 25.7 per cent. Mr. Chair, that is a
shame. As a matter of fact, in those same years, in the last twenty years, other
provinces have done much better. For example, in 1981, Prince Edward Island had
a child poverty rate of 22.7 per cent.
MR. SULLIVAN: Where are they now?
MR. H. HODDER: Now they stand at 12.5 per cent. Prince Edward Island has
done much better in addressing the issues of child poverty. When this minister,
a few moments ago, said in this House: We are able to establish priorities. We
are able to spend money on the choices that they make... Obviously, the choice
of this government is not to address the issues of child poverty. In those same
years for which I quoted the stats for Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland's
child poverty rate went from 21.6 per cent up to 25.3 per cent, and in the last
year it jumped to 25.7 per cent.
Mr. Chair, I want to note as well that for single-parent families the rate is
even higher. In fact, the child poverty rate for single-parent families in this
Province is in excess of 50 per cent. Therefore, when you compare two-parent
families and you compare single-parent families, the child poverty rate in this
Province is indeed a tremendous shame on all of the decision-makers in this
government. Obviously, children and child poverty do not merit much attention.
As I said when I started, in the Speech from the Throne this year, we could
not find one single sentence, not one comment, not a single sentence, that
talked about the issues of child poverty. Oh, there are some glowing comments
there, but did child poverty make the list? Absolutely not. Not a word, not a
paragraph, not one single iota of evidence that all of the petitions that we put
forward here on behalf of children have had any impact whatsoever on this
government and its decision-making processes.
Mr. Chair, I want to draw attention to the connection between child poverty
and educational achievement. To do that, I want to refer to a report of the
review of special education by Dr. Patricia Canning. It is entitled Special
Matters. I want to refer to
Chapter 3 in Dr. Canning's report. It is entitled:
Poverty, Illiteracy, and Educational Achievement in Newfoundland and Labrador.
As a matter of fact, the entire text of
Chapter 3 deals with child poverty.
Likewise, I should point out that there were something like ten or twelve
recommendations in the Williams Royal Commission that dealt with child poverty.
As a matter of fact, Dr. Canning references these recommendations and notes
that, up to the time of her report, this government, this Liberal government,
has done nothing to address child poverty in this Province, nothing effective in
any case, because the stats would have changed if there had been effective
programs. Dr. Canning reports that the implementation strategies recommended by
the Williams Royal Commission were still inactive by the government.
On the issue of child poverty, I want to read into the record a few comments
by Dr. Canning. She says, on page 38, "While it is acknowledged that not
all children from low-income homes do poorly in school...". I want to
reinforce that because we are not saying that all children from low-income
families do poorly in school. Not at all. We are just looking at the averages.
She reads, "While it is acknowledged that not children from low-income
homes do poorly in school, that the reasons for underachievement are complex,
and that underachievement in any individual student is the result of an
interacting constellation of variables, significant contributors to this problem
are almost certainly the high rates of family poverty and illiteracy and our
failure to consider the implications of this for educational policy and
practice."
Dr. Canning is saying that there is a definite relationship between child
poverty and school achievement. While individual families make their own
priorities, and while we commend those families with low incomes, who make
tremendous sacrifices to make sure that their children get the best
opportunities, on average, children from poor families do not do as well in
school.
She continues on to write, "While the relationship between poverty,
illiteracy and achievement has been recognized in a number of previous reports
including the 1992 Royal commission on Education, there has been no overall plan
to address these problems in a comprehensive manner."
I will repeat that, because it confirms with what I have been saying. She
says, "...there has been no overall plan to address these problems in a
comprehensive manner." In others words, this government has failed the most
vulnerable people in our society. They have failed the poorest of children.
There is no plan to address, in a comprehensive manner, child poverty.
Mr. Chair, I could go on to talk about the effects of poverty on schooling. I
could deal with it in some detail. The Canning Royal Commission -
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: Could I have leave for a moment?
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
CHAIR: By leave.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I acknowledge the consent of the
Government House Leader for me to continue.
Mr. Chair, Dr. Canning notes that recommendations number 147,
148,161,174,175,176,177,178 and up until 185 of the Williams Royal Commission
all deal with strategies to address child poverty. She says, years later: this
government has no comprehensive plan to address the issue. The stats that have
been repeated by me, many times in this House, show the effects of that.
Mr. Chair, I acknowledge that there is a lot that we could talk about here, a
lot more that I could say about the effects of poverty on children and youth but
let it be known that poor children are not being served well by this government.
If they were, then we would have had commentary on that matter in the Throne
Speech many weeks ago. Poor children and poor families are not a concern, if
they were we would see strategies. If they had been a concern, the Williams
Royal Commission would have been acted upon and the twelve or thirteen
recommendations from the Williams Royal Commission would have been more than
just words on paper. They would have brought forward an action plan, but they
did not. Some years later the Canning report on Special Education, called
Special Matters, further indicts this government.
I ask this government: How long will our hungry children have to suffer? How
long will they be disadvantaged? When the minister talked earlier about setting
priorities, I had to ask a very straightforward question: When will hungry
children and poor low income families be placed on the agenda of this government
so that their children can have an equal opportunity for success, an equal
opportunity to stay in school, an equal opportunity to engage in extra circular
activities so that when schools go on field trips they can go too? When will we
find that there is a comprehensive strategy, the type that Dr. Canning talked
about? When will that strategy be available and be implemented by this
government so that we will not have an indictment - as I just referred to, the
indictment that is offered by the report I referred to earlier, where I gathered
my stats - on the child welfare profile put out by the National Council of
Welfare report.
This is indeed a telling document. It is a terrible indictment on this
government's priorities and shows clearly that children have no voice in this
government and that it particularly applies to children of low income families
who are disadvantaged very often from birth. This government's actions means
that they are disadvantaged at birth, continues through all of their childhood
years and because they cannot avail of the equal opportunities in school, very
often the cycle continues.
Mr. Chair, I say to you on behalf of all of the children in this Province,
the 25 per cent, the 30,000 children in school this day who did not have a lunch
- 30,000 children went to school today, in this Province, who did not have a
lunch because their parents could not afford to give them a lunch. Now there may
have been some cases where that was a deliberate choice. However, often it is
not a choice.
I say to all members on the government side, it is time that we reviewed our
priorities. We read Dr. Williams report all over again. We reviewed what Dr.
Canning is saying. While we commend the initiatives through School Lunch
Programs and other initiatives, many children in this Province are not part of
the decision-making that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board commented on
just a few minutes ago.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr, Chair.
I would like to say a few words in support of this bill. As the hon. minister
mentioned previously, this is essentially a fairness measure. We currently have
a situation in this Province where a small business owner can structure their
affairs so they pay less tax than an employee who earns the same amount of
money. This is essentially an inequitable situation from the point of view of
wage earners and also since the Province's tax base can be eroded due to the
simple reclassification of an accounting effort. It is a loophole. It is a
loophole that has existed for many years and one which we have not had the
ability to close until very recently. So for this reason, I support the
amendment to the Income Tax Act.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I stand today to say a few words on Bill 6,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax
Act, 2000.
An act that will put $3 million back into the coffers of the general
revenue of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This being a money bill -
and a money bill allows each Member of this House of Assembly to speak on a very
wide range of topics.
I am going to go back and talk a little while about an issue that I raised in
Question Period. I raised the point of talking about the unemployment problems
and the lack of economic activity in my District of Bonavista South. The Acting
Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal was quick to get to his feet and
almost kind of tried to chastise me and say: How dare you ask such questions
when $11.5 million was spent in your district since 1996. I say to you, Mr.
Chairman, and to you, Mr. Minister, whoop-de-do! Two million dollars a year in
one of the biggest districts in Newfoundland and Labrador. What I would like to
ask the minister: How many permanent full-time jobs have been created since 1996
out of that $11 million? That is the question I would like to ask. When he
referred to the shrimp plant in Port Union, what he did not say and what he did
not tell the people, is that there are 120 people working in that particular
shrimp plant today for fifteen to twenty weeks work a year. Prior to 1992, there
were 1,200 people working there for fifty-two weeks of the year. That is what he
did not say.
Mr. Chairman, yes we have had some success. I suppose one of the positive
places has been the Atlantic Marine Products Inc. plant in Catalina. That has
certainly been a positive note but that did not come out of the $11.6 million
that the government was talking about. I think the federal government may have
taken
part in a training program where now that particular company has been able
to access some employees by providing some employment services and training
services.
Mr. Chairman, I can assure the minister that the tip of the Bonavista
Peninsula is probably one of the most devastated economic regions in this
Province today. When you look at the plant in Charleston, where in excess of 300
people worked at one time, today nobody goes to work there. When I say plants, I
am talking about fish plants. When you look at the plant in Bonavista, the crab
processing plant, where in excess of 600 people worked at one time. You go there
today, Mr. Chairman, and I would think this year that we will be awfully lucky
if 150 to 180 people qualify for even only the basic amounts of being able to
collect EI. So, while the minister might stand and say there was $11 million
spent in that district since 1996, I can assure you, there is a great need for a
heck of a lot more money and there is a great need to provide some economic
stimulus in that area of our Province.
One of the things that the Minister of Finance - and I have to refer to this
as well, Mr. Chairman, in my deliberations here. The Minister of Finance stood
the other day and talked about the forty-seven requests that came from the
Opposition members by requesting more money, by saying that the government was
overzealous in their spending on the one hand and how we had brought forward
forty-seven requests on the other hand, looking for this government to reach
into the coffers and put out more money.
Two of the items that they had listed there were from myself, number
forty-six and number forty-two, and it reads like this: May 2, 2002, MHA for
Bonavista South, Roger Fitzgerald. Opposition Tourism, Culture and Recreation
critic, Roger Fitzgerald, has called on the provincial government to provide the
support needed to ensure the Random Passage movie site at White Point in
Trinity Bay continues to be available and accessible to tourists. Does that
sound like a member? Does that sound like people on this side asking for more
money? Does that sound like we are asking the government to pump in a million
dollars to allow this site to be open to the public? I say not. In fact, in my
questions to the minister and in my questions to the Minister of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation in our Estimates Committee meetings, it was clearly
stated that it would not cost government one plug nickel, nobody was looking for
a penney. All they were looking for and all they were asking for, Mr. Chairman,
was the right to be able to use that particular site. All they were looking for
was for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation or the Minister of
Government Services and Lands to issue them a permit to allow them to access
this particular facility. So, that is one question that I asked that wasn't
going to cost government a penny. In fact, I say to the minister and I say to
you, Mr. Chairman, it would create money. It would create money. They were not
looking for a penny.
Number forty-two, just to show you how inconsistent and what this paper
means, that the minister was flashing around and talking about all the requests
that were coming forward, was exactly the same topic. I asked the minister if
she would commit today to do the right thing: to provide the support needed to
allow the popular movie location to benefit rural Newfoundland and Labrador and
not be destroyed, as is now the alternative. That was a question asked by me
again on April 29, Mr. Chairman. Here again, not one cent of money was needed.
All we were asking for, and all the Random Passage Trust was asking for, was the
right to be able to access that piece of property, to open it up for tourists,
to charge an admission fee, and to create some employment in a rural area of the
Province that has been devastated with the economic downturn in the fishery. I
just wanted t make those two points.
The other point that I have to make, this being a money bill and talking
about income tax, is the unfairness of the Department of Human Resources and
Employment to reach out to the lowest income earners in this Province, the
people who need help the most, the people in this Province who we should be
reaching out to help and to support, are the actions of the Department of Human
Resources and Employment to reach out and claw back income tax returns from
those people who are receiving social services; those people who are unfortunate
enough, by no choice of their own, to be on social assistance.
Mr. Chairman, a few year ago, everything that somebody on social assistance
received as a rebate under income tax was clawed back by this government.
Because there were enough people on this side of the House and enough people
outside this House complaining to government and saying how unfair it was, this
government, in their wisdom, decided that they would take a look at what they
were doing. In their wisdom, they came back said: Okay, Mr. and Mrs.
Newfoundlander and Labradorian, who are unfortunate enough to be on social
assistance, what we are going to allow you to do is, we are going to allow you
to keep $500 of your income tax return and, whatever you get back from your
income tax return over and above that, we are going to take from you, and if you
do not come into the office and pay it back, then we will take it off your next
cheque. That is what this government has been doing.
Only the other day, I had a call from a gentleman who was unfortunate enough
to find himself on social assistance. He called me and said: Guess what? I will
not be having a paycheck for the next month, for the next two pay periods. I
said: What happened? He said: Because I got some money back from an income tax
rebate and now the Department of Human Resources and Employment is taking the
money back from me. Guess what I did with the money that I got back? I went out
and I paid this bill and that bill and another bill, and I took the bills marked
paid over to the office of Human Resources and Employment and said, here is what
I did with my money, now why should I be punished?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: Not allowed, not so. You will be punished because you
were responsible enough to go and pay your bills. Now, this is money, I say to
you, Mr. Chairman, that somebody made while they were working. This is money
and Labrador while somebody was gainfully employed. This has nothing to do with
the Department of Human Resources and Employment whatsoever. It was money made
while those people, who were unfortunate enough to be on social assistance, were
working outside the rules and regulations of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Department of Human Resources and Employment.
I say to you -
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: I just want to finish this point, if I may. There are
many other points, but I will just finish this one.
CHAIR: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
CHAIR: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, here is an example where this government,
if they were interested, if they cared, could reach out and help those who are
less fortunate in this Province. Here is an example where government could say:
If you are unfortunate enough to be on social assistance, if you have been
fortunate enough to have had a job and have contributed and paid in income tax -
if that income tax money was to be returned to that individual, why shouldn't
they be allowed to keep it, especially if they were responsible enough to bring
back and show proof that it was spent in supporting their family and maintaining
their household within the community.
I say to members opposite, since we have allowed those people, those low wage
earners or those people unfortunate enough not to have a wage, to move from
nothing to $500, I guess I will end off and conclude by putting in a plea, to
say to people opposite, that when somebody is working, and if they are fortunate
enough to get a rebate on their income tax, then, for God's sake, let them
have it. It is theirs, it is not yours, it was money made when people were not
on social services. That is the plea that I will put forward and that is the way
I will end this five-minute commentary on this bill today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate an opportunity to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for
Bonavista South. It is certainly not for me to chastise him or chastise anyone
in this House. That is not my purpose here and it is not my role. I think it is
incumbent upon all of us, as members, regardless of what side of the House we
sit on, that we know the truth, that we know the facts and we speak all the
facts.
For example, everyone in this Province understands that since 1992 and the
moratorium we have had a terrible time, particularly in rural Newfoundland - no
argument about that from anyone - but you cannot sit and just simply be a critic
for all time and be bankrupt of any ideas. You are constantly doom, gloom,
critical of what someone else is doing, and give very little credit to - this is
not only a government initiative, this Economic Recovery Plan. The members of
the Opposition have to realize that this is not driven from the top down. This
plan that came about here, where we have twenty zone boards, this was designed
because the people of this Province feel that it is the best way to deal with
their needs and to get to the recovery that we need. It is the people who live
in these communities, it is the municipal councillors, the municipal leaders,
the members of Chambers of Commerce, the members of Business Development
Associations, who know the needs on the ground. It is not for us to tell them
what is best for them. They, through their zone boards, fashion their plans
together and come to government looking for assistance. Sometimes the assistance
may be by way of advice. Sometimes the need may be for some funding to do a
marketing plan, to introduce them to some export markets and so on. That is the
role of this government. There has been a plan. The people of this Province see
through the hypocrisy of what we hear here sometimes in Question Period, and the
comments from the Opposition; and I use that word seriously, hypocrisy, because
you cannot always be a critic or say one thing when the truth speaks of
something else actually happening on the ground.
We hear a lot about openness. We hear a lot about transparency, and
accusations that this Administration is not open and is not transparent. By the
same token, if you flip that around and say to the members of the Opposition:
Where is your openness and your transparency when it comes to telling the people
of this Province what you stand for? There has been nothing deceptive or nothing
hidden over here. The Jobs and Growth Renewal Strategy is a public document,
publicly accessible. Everybody in this Province had their input into it.
When you criticize, you are not only criticizing the Administration; you are
criticizing the over 200 development associations in this Province who played a
role in creating the plan and who every day work in delivering the plan. This is
not driven from the top down. Nobody is claiming over here, either, that the
plan is perfect. No one is claiming that we have achieved it. We would be
foolish and foolhardy to do such a thing.
We all know, in Newfoundland - anyone who has read any kind of media or
watched any market reports, any economic studies - the Northeast Avalon region
of this Province is doing quite well, thank you, and nobody minds if they do
even better. That does not take away from the fact that we are not where we want
to go when it comes to rural Newfoundland. Nobody is prepared to accept the
status quo when it comes to the economic plight of rural Newfoundland. We
certainly are not prepared to accept it, but we do know we have a plan. The plan
entails, first and foremost, working with the people; not telling the people
what we think is good for them all the time, but assisting the people in what
they think is best for themselves.
It is not only the provincial government which is the be-all and end-all for
economic development. We had to work closely with our federal partners, because
many times the funding that comes about does not come from provincial coffers.
Again, the people of this Province are not fools. They have a lot of common
sense and they know quite well the realistic limitations within which we live.
We are basically their representatives. They know we can only spend what we
bring in, and from time to time you may run a deficit to do the things that are
absolutely necessary, such as health care and so on, and certainly municipal
pieces of infrastructure.
People do not go against you or dislike you because you are trying your best.
People understand that. You do not always succeed at the rate you want. You do
not always get there as fast as you want to and need to, but people will give
you the benefit of the doubt if they know that you are trying to do the best
that you can do. They do not want people who are always critical, and they do
not want people who are always negative, who only always see the dark side in
things and who are never there to point out anything that is positive and good.
Personally, I think these 200 development associations in this Province are
doing an amicable job, an admirable job in putting their voluntary time and
efforts and ideas into trying to make their communities the best that they can
be in this Province.
Anyone who looks at the - I guess it is like one of the popular commentaries
said on one of the Open Line shows recently when they were referring to the
Leader of the Opposition. She called him a political lightweight, a policy
lightweight, and I guess that is what we are seeing here. I am just trying to
make a point, not in a political context but in a very serious tone, that we
have to deliver to the people of this Province a plan. We have a plan and we are
prepared to see it through but you just cannot have critics from the other side
- sometimes you have to own up, if you see something good and proper happening
you have to acknowledge it, support it and encourage it.
We have, for example, in the last two weeks here in the Province, seen a
number of published reports about certain economic indicators concerning the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are very promising. They indicate
that we are going to have both the RBC report and, as of yesterday, the Bank of
Montreal report. As a Province we are going to be doing quite well in terms of
the economic indicators, but that is not good enough for someone outside to tell
us what they think we are going to do, to prophesy about where they think we are
going to fit in the Canadian economic spectrum for the next year. We have to
take those positive economic indicators, turn it around and focus on where we
need to get those benefits to in rural Newfoundland. That is what this plan is
all about. That is what the various programs are all about when it comes to the
Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.
If we have someone in rural Newfoundland, for example, who is manufacturing a
product - maybe they do not know where the markets are. Maybe they do not know
how to market what they have. Maybe they have a germ of an idea that is a very
good idea but they do not know how to do a business plan. They do not know, if
they get their business plan, how much money they will need. They do not know
how many widgets they can make and they do not know where to sell their widgets
when they get them made but that does not take away from the fact that it is a
good idea. That is what we have to continue to do, encourage the people who live
in rural Newfoundland to take their ideas that they have and go to places like
your zone boards, your economic development associations, through your
Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development so that you can take your
idea - and what is an idea, you can flesh it out on paper and make it something
that is concrete.
If you need some assistance again, in getting your marketing plan done, that
is what these government programs are about. If you need to know, for example,
where in the United States or the Eastern Seaboard you can sell your product, we
have programs available to help you do that. We have been successful. We had
some great success stories in this Province and we are continuing to have them.
We are not only in low-end type of economic ventures or whatever. We have some
very sophisticated, complex, IT type projects in this Province. I refer
specifically to the Guign proposal, the only company in the world that is
going to have a piece of high-tech, first-class, aerospace property on board the
space shuttle come January in 2003. It was designed and built right here in
Newfoundland, in St. Philips. People do not realize that in the last two or
three years government has encouraged these people.
I visited the site personally where this is being manufactured. A
first-class, aerodynamic, aerospace property that nobody else in the world has
and we have it here in Newfoundland and it is going to be on the space shuttle
come January. People like the European Space Agency and Nassau have millions and
millions of dollars to invest and they are putting it into this company in
Newfoundland which has sixty-three people on the payroll. Of the sixty-three
people on the payroll, something like 80 per cent of them have PhDs in
everything from Mathematics to Physics. That is progress. We are not shipping
out all of the brains. There are more leaving than we want to, but at least we
are putting the programs in place so that we can keep some of these businesses
here.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The minister's time is up.
MR. PARSONS: If I could just have a moment to clue up.
CHAIR: Does the minister have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
CHAIR: By leave.
MR. PARSONS: I would just like to say that everything is not rosy. It is
certainly not rosy in rural Newfoundland; that is not by design or by wish of
anyone. We want prosperity for everyone in this Province. We are on the right
track. We do have a plan. Don't knock everything that is in place just because
it is not working as quickly and as smoothly and as fast as some people would
like it to be. If you have other ideas that are better, we would certainly
appreciate you telling them to us. Don't keep it in the closet for God's
sake and keep your ideas and your policies locked up because, God forbid, if it
should ever be revealed to the people of this Province that you had some godsend
ideas for economic development and you did not tell them. I do not believe in
punishing the people of the Province either by not telling them something. So, I
certainly invite any suggestions or comments that you might have to improve the
system that we currently have in terms of our economic plan.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Very rarely, in the nine years in this Legislature, have I felt insulted or
been insulted like the Minister of Justice has insulted members in this House on
this side. I feel compelled to get up.
Now, we are talking about the income tax and he has indicated about the sheer
hypocrisy of members on this side of the House. If you want to be specific about
the bill we are talking about today, as leader of the party in 1999, I want to
remind you of some hypocrisy, minister.
In the 1999 election, on about day five of the campaign, I, on behalf of the
members of our party, unveiled what our tax plan would be for the people of this
Province. On a leader's debate, the former premier, the person that you first
got elected under and every member over there first got elected under, stood in
the leader's debate, and this is what he said: I had the public service check
out your tax plan. It will cost the people of the Province billions of dollars.
Throughout the rest of the campaign he tried to campaign on that until Wade
Locke, in an independent interview on TV when asked, showed the bags of money
and suggested and said that probably the Tory plan is more likely to be more
accurate.
What happened six months after the election? I was in Corner Brook at a
Federation of Municipalities meeting when the report of the Premier's Advisory
Council on the Economy rendered its recommendations on income tax. And guess
what it was? It was point for point our plan: an immediate 5 per cent -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: - reduction in personal income tax, a recommendation to
bring it to the national average as soon as it could, the elimination of the
EDGE Program or a review of the EDGE Program. Those were the components that
were contained in our tax plan, and that was the plan that you and your
government implemented six months after tearing the stomach out of it publicly
because you thought it was a good election ploy.
Minister, I am going to take you off your high horse right now, if you want
to talk about hypocrisy. Ask your Premier, ask the Premier of this Province,
whom you serve, when he was the Minister of Tourism, why he laid off public
employees in the Cabot Corporation for purely punitive political reasons. What
happened afterwards, Minister?
As the Minister of Justice, you should understand this above all else. What
happened when Judge Wells eventually got to the court in the settlement? It was
said clearly that you laid off people wrongfully, that you did so willfully, and
that it should not have happened! How much did you pay those employees? Is that
the action of a hypocritical government? Absolutely! A hypocritical government,
Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I am not going to stand in this House and listen to some
member, on either side of the House, stand up in a willful way and insult and
call each member, and impugn motives into other members, saying what hypocrites
we are.
Let's review again. Let's talk about the Minister of Justice's own
department, for example. Let's talk about Randy Druken.. Let's talk about
Ronald Dalton. Let's talk about Gregory Parsons. Look them in the face and
say: Do you think that my department has not been a hypocrite in how we have
handled those people?
Minister, you are in no position to lecture this side of the House about what
we can or cannot do. You are in no position to lecture anybody on this side of
the House!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Let's talk about hypocrites. For nine months in this
Legislature, leading up to the 1999 provincial election, we called for a
provincial energy plan in this House - to the former Premier, to the former
Minister of Mines and Energy, when you had a plan to dam every river, it was
called NUGS, non-utility generators system, privatization of the river system,
to sell power back to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, stood up time after time
in this House and said: No, this is a good plan.
On the eve of the election, because of public opinion, Mr. Chair, what
happened? They announced our policy on non-utility generation; and, guess what
it cost the people of the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Because they had entered into agreements with certain
companies in this Province, they were held liable and over $1 million was paid
from the taxpayers' pocket to cover up their incompetence.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: And you have the gall to stand up and call this side of the
House hypercritical!
Let's talk about something else. Let's talk about Trans City, and your
legacy as a Liberal government. How many millions of dollars was wasted from the
public Treasury by that government over there? You cannot get out from under the
fact that, as a critical and integral part of the Premier and this government,
decisions have cost millions upon millions of dollars, and you have the gall to
call us hypocrites.
In the last election, during the election, we talked about accountability
features in our election platform. One of them was the House of Assembly being
televised. During the election, your leader said our Province could not afford
it. What has happened since then? Thanks be to God, the people of the Province
can see who the hypocrites are in this Legislature today because it is being
televised! Talk about hypocritical. Don't lecture me on being a hypocrite!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: In1989, when the Wells government and the Liberal
government took the Ombudsman and flushed it down the political toilet, there
went accountability. For three elections later, it was this party that stood up
and fought for the Ombudsman. The party that you got elected under, the mandate
that you were elected under, the election that you were elected under, your
leader, and I assume you, too, said no to that. What happened? Because public
opinion changed, so, like the wind, did the Liberal government's opinion
change. Finally, they came to their senses. Don't talk about being
hypocritical.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Ultimately, Madam Chair, here is the big play: In 1999, in
February, walking down that hallway, I happened to walk down behind former
Premier Tobin and now Senator George Furey, when your Premier, the man that you
served under, the man that appointed you to the Cabinet, stood in his caucus
room and asked this to the people of the Province: Who is it, Mr. and Mrs.
Newfoundland and Labrador, that you want to finish the job on Voisey's Bay and
Lower Churchill? Is it me or Ed Byrne? During that election - and you will come
to pay for this or stand up and be counted, ultimately - during the election.
Not one ounce will leave of unprocessed ore. Not one ounce of semi-unprocessed
ore. If there is no mine here for all the ore to be processed here, there will
be no mining lease.
You do not say that today, do you? And, you have the gall and the nerve to
call us hypocrites!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: You have the gall and the nerve to call us insulting!
We now have a Premier who was elected since 1996. In 1996, all Liberal
members - a huge victory for them - campaigned, and it was a smelter on wheels.
It was going into, and the oppressions were left that it was going into, every
region of the Province: Baie Verte, Labrador, Botwood, Stephenville, your way,
Bay of Islands, Argentia. It was the smelter on wheels.
In 1999, we sat in this House - let me back up. We sat