Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 16 December 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 59)
2004-12-16
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 16, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 59
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon, the Chair would wish to rule on a point of privilege raised
on May 25 by the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. The incident
reported has troubled the Chair. The Speaker has spoken to members and staff and
reviewed all available sources of information, including video and audio tapes
from the Broadcast Centre of the House of Assembly as well as the security
camera tapes.
Having considered the information from all of these sources, and without
calling into question the bona fides of any hon. member, the Chair has been
unable to ascertain what actually happened. The Chair therefore rules that,
while something may indeed have happened in the Chamber on May 20, immediately
following the adjournment, there is insufficient, impartial and independent
information to establish a prima facie case of breach of privilege.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the
hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the
District of Trinity North; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de
Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West; and, the hon. the
Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
We will call the Member for Bay of Islands first. The hon. the member.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize a group of young
athletes from the Corner Brook-Bay of Islands area who recently competed in the
2004 Elevation Madness Tournament in St. John's.
The Herdman Huskies boys' basketball team recently took first place in this
tournament. The team is coached by Steve Cave.
This tournament is one of the top two tournaments for high school basketball
in our Province. It is a great accomplishment to see the west beating the east.
I am sure the Premier and the Member for Humber East are quite proud of their
accomplishment also. This team has basically been together for the last six
years. Their hard work and dedication is a true sign of team spirit and
dedication towards a common goal - winning the Provincial 4A Basketball
Tournament.
I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations to team members:
Alex Fillatre, Max Fillatre, Aaron Flood, David Joyce, Josh Jacobs, Ryan Murphy,
Chris Ogbuah, Adam Pike, Ryan Rose, Brian Walsh, Adam Warren, and Char Warren,
on their accomplishment and wish them well in their future competitions.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of our
colleagues. One of our colleagues in this House today, Mr. Speaker, is
celebrating a milestone in the aging process. As we cast our eyes in his
direction, to the Member for Burin-Placentia West, he is obviously not aging
well but we are extremely delighted to be able to stand today and, on behalf of
all his colleagues in this House, wish him all the best and a very Happy
Birthday.
This year has been a particularly challenging one, and if it wasn't for his
tremendous good state of health - state of mental and physical health - and a
tremendous health system, we may not be able to extend such congratulations
today.
I think, on behalf of all members of this House, I say to the member, a very
Happy Birthday. We are delighted to have you continue to be with us.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize two couples in my district who will celebrate
incredible milestones over the Christmas break.
Joseph and Mabel Peddle of Spaniard's Bay have spent the past sixty-five
years dedicated to each other, and they will celebrate this very special event
on Christmas Day.
I would also like to recognize Arthur and Elizabeth Young of Upper Island
Cove who will celebrate their sixty-second wedding anniversary on December 23.
Over the years, both of these couples have been active within their
communities and, by example, they have shown that love, dedication, and
commitment are important attributes for a long and happy life together.
Mr. Speaker, I wish Mr. and Mrs. Peddle and Mr. and Mrs. Young the very best
in the years to come, and I ask all members to join me in congratulating these
two fine couples on their forthcoming wedding anniversaries.
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 rise today to make a statement on behalf of my colleague, the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi who, unfortunately, cannot be here today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Rick Morris, a prominent
member of the social work community of St. John's, who passed away December 3,
2004 at age forty-six.
Rick was a most well-respected colleague of the social work fraternity, and
was known for his compassion, sense of justice, and high ethical standards in
the social work profession.
In addition to his family, his wife Susan Pye, and children Shane and Anna,
and his many friends and colleagues, he is mourned by the many clients whom he
counseled over the years, as counseling was an important part of his work.
The support and assistance he gave to the many former residents of abuse at
Mount Cashel Orphanage, as they struggled with the memories and traumatic
consequences of their treatment, was a significant part of the healing process
for them, and he will be remembered by them as a true friend and counselor.
To die suddenly at the peak of his professional years, and to leave behind a
young family, is sad, indeed, but to have accomplished much and gained the
respect and admiration of all those who knew him is a true testament to his
contribution as a human being.
I ask hon. members to join in offering condolences to his wife, Susan, their
children Shane and Anna, and his family and friends on their loss.
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House I asked the Premier two questions
related to communications contracts paid by government. One awarded to Ryan
Research and Communications for $42,000 and another to Market Insights
Incorporated for $100,000. My understanding, Mr. Speaker, was that the Premier
committed to getting these details and tabling them in the House. I ask of the
House Leader today whether or not he can provide any further information as to
whether we can expect to see the information on these two communications
contracts before the House closes today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not have the specific knowledge because the Premier did give an
undertaking, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition, but what I will
commit to is to get an answer, once Question Period is over, to try to find out
where that undertaking is and I will report back to the House before we close
today.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate - because I asked
ten questions yesterday, got an answer to only one, which was from the
Government House Leader - him giving me an answer again. At least, he is
consistent. I guess the rest of them are consistent too, they do not give any
answers.
Mr. Speaker, leaked documents sent to the Opposition in August month
indicated that government has no strategy for rural development in the Province.
The internal documents from the department of innovation, trade and rural
destruction indicated a level of dissatisfied within the department and revealed
a lack of any plan for rural communities. These are documents from the staff in
their own department. The documents, Mr. Speaker, showed senior officials
criticizing government's budget cutbacks, decisions that they believe damage
potential non-profit groups and development projects in rural areas.
I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, when is she going to start taking her
officials advice and start paying some real attention to economic development in
rural Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The document to which the Leader of the Opposition refers critique the fact
that we no longer had a Community Economy Development Program that was funded at
the tune of $460,000 by the former Administration that was used to leverage
funding from other sources.
Mr. Speaker, we have invested $1.2 million this year in community-based
organizations that has leveraged about $5.4 million in other funding from other
partners, all of it invested in rural parts of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During the election, the Premier indicated that his number one priority was
economic development in the Province, particularly and especially in rural
areas. We continuously hear stories and reports from groups based in rural parts
of the Province that are being adversely impacted because of the funding cuts
and lack of planning of this government.
On September 29, Mr. Speaker, almost a full year into the job, we received a
response under the Freedom of Information Act that showed government has done
nothing to secure a new comprehensive economic development agreement with the
federal government. Not even write a letter to the federal government; it does
not exist.
I ask the minister, again, Mr. Speaker: Why has she done nothing, not even to
the point of writing a letter to the federal government, asking for
consideration of a new or extended community economic development agreement?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, federal-provincial agreements are an issue
for Newfoundland and Labrador. They are also an issue for Atlantic Canada. The
Premier, myself as minister, the department and other ministers have taken
advantage of every opportunity to make the case for new provincial and federal
agreements to be reinstated. Also, the Atlantic Premiers have undertaken the
case, and at every opportunity have also put forward the proposal that
federal-provincial agreements be reinstated.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That obviously flies in the face of what we have received under the Freedom
of Information request, that there has not even been a letter written to the
federal government about this issue up to September 29.
I ask the minister: Can she table - because there was nothing done
officially, not one thing done officially up to September 29 - in this
Legislature any correspondence, any official documents, any proposals, anything
other than maybe another telephone chat that somebody might have had, which
shows that they have made a serious and concentrated effort to approach the
federal government, government to government - not as a group with others, but
government to government about a new community economic development agreement
Labrador? Can she table the evidence of a concerted approach?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would be happy to table correspondence that refers to that matter. It is
ironic, Mr. Speaker, that I find myself here today defending the position of a
government who is trying to repair a relationship that was totally eroded by the
people opposite over there and that I am not doing it fast enough.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this government was elected on a promise to put in
place a plan to revitalize the rural areas of our Province. Since forming a
government they have cut funding, closed offices, laid off workers and refused
to use the authority they have under the FPI Act to stop FPI from destroying our
rural communities. This government is in the second year of their mandate and
still gives no sign of a plan to revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development: Where is the
plan promised more than a year ago?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are well advanced in developing our rural strategy. The people of the
Province have asked us to take into consideration a number of issues that they
want addressed in that strategy and, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand in
this House and apologize for taking in the views of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, there are 2,200 new jobs in this Province
over this time last year. All of those jobs are in rural regions of the
Province. This government has undertaken a number of initiatives, such as the
broadband strategy, such as our innovation strategy, and we will continue to
move forward to make strategic investments in all parts of the Province,
especially those in the rural regions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting it is taking fourteen months.
When you campaigned, you campaigned on having the plan. There was no interest in
consultation at that time. By the way, the new jobs - Voisey's Bay and
Marystown - the result of actions taken by the previous Administration. So if
you want to talk about jobs, that is where they came for them.
Mr. Speaker, one of the many areas of this Province has been hard hit by the
cutbacks and neglect of this right-wing government, is the Great Northern
Peninsula. Not even the Conservative Member for St. Barbe has spoken out about
the economic and social hardships facing that area, will the minister tell how
she plans to deal with the crisis facing the Northern Peninsula?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with my colleagues opposite
taking responsibility for their role in the good, or taking credit for the good,
initiatives that they started; but, when you do that, Mr. Speaker, you cannot
take credit for a piece of it. You have to take credit for all of it. You take
credit for the good things that you do, but you also take credit for the fiscal
mess that we were left here to deal with now, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: There are strategic initiatives, there is strategic
planning that is being done, investments in all parts of the Province, including
funding now for the Torrent River project in Hawkes Bay, Mr. Speaker. There are
all kinds of opportunities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
There are no easy answers. I expect our colleagues opposite would have found
them, if there were easy answers, before 60,000 people left the Province. We
will work with the people of the Province to find solutions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we will not take credit for laying off 4,000 civil
servants or closing offices throughout this Province. In fact, we decentralized
government to help out rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe it is time you
looked at doing something similar.
Mr. Speaker, Regional Economic Development Boards were put in place to
decentralized economic development in this Province. I ask the minister: Is this
government committed to the REDB process in the Province, which has
representation from all sectors, or do you plan to slash those the way that you
have done health care and education boards?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
This government is committed to community-based community development and
community-based businesses. Mr. Speaker, I have put in place a ministerial
committee that consists of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, now
REDA, which is the provincial body for the rural development boards, and ACOA.
This committee is developing the parameters of the committee, but what they are
going to look at is the mandate and structure of RED boards to make them
effective in all parts of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Let me ask the question again, Mr. Speaker, because obviously
she did not give me an answer. Are you committed to the REDB process? Are you
going to continue to fund the same number of REDB boards that exist today,
tomorrow?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can only say again that this government is committed to regionally-based
economic development. The ministerial committee which is set up in partnership
with now REDA, ACOA, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities,
will look at all of the issues surrounding REDBs and report back, and a plan of
action will be formulated from that report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we get an answer without an answer. Clearly, what
she is telling us here is that they are going to slash the boards, and I guess
Mr. Graham Letto has been put in charge of doing just that.
Mr. Speaker, this government has instituted hundreds of millions of dollars
in cuts this year. The only announcement to come out of the department with
respect to any kind of regional economic development project was $1.2 million
over three years, less than half a million of which actually went for
initiatives in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Is this the type of economic
initiative that you are doing, and can we expect more money over the next three
years?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, broadband in 2004 is a critical tool to grow
business and to create new business throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We
have a broadband initiative from the federal government that needed some help
from the proponents here in the Province, and were told by the former
Administration to go away and find funding elsewhere. As a result, almost $16
million fell off the table. Thank God we came here when we did. We were able to
salvage that program and $16 million invested in rural parts of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Minister, with all due respect, you do not know what you are
talking about. The broadband initiative was an initiative that we started, and
we brought the partners together. That is why it is working. It was an
initiative of this Administration!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS FOOTE: Minister, are you still accepting -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, to complete her question.
MS FOOTE: Minister, are you still accepting proposals for regional
economic development initiatives? If so, what is the process for industry
groups, and will you, in the spirit of openness and accountability, release the
criteria that will be used to evaluate those proposals?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One point two million dollars this year was invested in local initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, in our new budget -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS DUNDERDALE: - we hope to be addressing, to have funds for
community-based initiatives. Unlike the former Administration, this time the
program will be advertised, the criteria will be published, and everyone will
have fair and equal access.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I questioned the minister about Old Mill Road,
which has been plowed since 1972, the minister said there would be no change in
the classification of roads and the government would stick with its policy.
I ask the minister: Have there been any exemptions of class 4 roads from this
policy?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge with this caveat. We
were advised, after we made the announcement, that there was 1.2 kilometres or
1.3 kilometres of Deer Park that was on a registered school bus run with the
school board. So we exempted that part, not all of it, just that part for the
school bus run. I think there was point seven of a kilometre that was a school
bus run on Beachy Cove Road, and that was exempted, but that is all that I am
aware of.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: It is nice to know in the Tory districts that there were
exemptions, Mr. Speaker.
My question is to the Premier -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BARRETT: My question is to the Premier. The Premier was personally
involved with the exemption and upgrading of a class 4 road to Big Falls in the
District of Humber Valley. Government spent $150,000 in that district to upgrade
a class 4 road and plow it because of the tourism potential, yet taxpayers of
the Province are being cut off for the sake of $15,000 a year or less.
I ask the Premier: Will he now intervene with the minister, the way he did
for the road near his own district, for the people of Old Mill Road and the
people on Beachy Cove Road, or will these taxpayers be left to suffer due to
unfair changes in government policy?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the two school bus exemptions
were registered school bus runs that were registered with the school board and
brought to our attention. I do not care where they are located.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Old Mill Road.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Old Mill Road was never, and is not today, a
registered school bus run. There has never been a school bus run on Old Mill
Road. Never been!
AN HON. MEMBER: Had there been?
MR. RIDEOUT: No, there had not been.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get to the gist of the hon. member's question
about Sir Richard Squires Park. That is just it, Sir Richard Squires Park is a
provincial asset. It is a provincial park owned by this Province and we have a
responsibility to make sure that the road to those parks are accessible, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will recognize the Member for Bellevue for one final supplementary.
The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: I just want to ask the minister: If the young people on Old
Mill Road who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into their homes, and
the people on Beachy Cove Road in Tors Cove who invested hundreds of thousands
of dollars into their homes, are they not a provincial asset?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say to the hon. member, who
has been in this House since the 1980s, that he should know that when the
Speaker stands the hon. member is supposed to take his seat. That is what we are
all supposed to do, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the Member for Bellevue and now he has recognized
the minister to make a response.
I ask the minister to complete his response rather quickly.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat it once more. Hopefully, this time it will sink
into the hon. gentleman's thinking, that Beachy Cove Road and the 1.3
kilometres of Deer Park Road was a registered school bus run, was registered
with the Avalon East School Board for years. Old Mill Road is not a registered
school bus run, was never registered, was not a school bus run when the hon.
member was Minister of Transportation and is not today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. I
want to ask the minister a question concerning -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We have finished the exchange between the Member for Bellevue and the
minister. I ask members for their acceptance of the rule of the Chair.
The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, my question is for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development concerning Newfoundland Hardwoods located in Clarenville, which has
been involved in producing creosote timber used in construction. This company
has been a profit-making Crown corporation, or was a Crown corporation, for more
than fifty years. A few years ago it was sold, and to use a quote from the
minister of the day, Chuck Furey, he said: "This is one of the few
government entities that makes real money. We're going to safeguard against
somebody purchasing it for the sake of shutting it down."
Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, the plant is being shut down, being
dismantled, equipment being sold, removed from the Province, and the product is
being shipped in from their plant in Nova Scotia.
I want to ask the minister what discussions she has had with the employer,
Stella-Jones, and the employees, to find alternatives to the fifty-plus-year-old
operation closing and the loss of high-paying jobs to that area?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My colleague is right, the company was sold by the government in 1995. It was
resold again in 2003. The Stella-Jones company is a private company, so we have
little or no influence. The United Steel Workers' Union, who represents the
people who work there, are trying to arrange a meeting with the company, that
they have asked us to participate in, and we will gladly do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Will the minister go so far as to try and find another
operator to take over the plant in Clarenville, rather than letting the company
ship their product into this Province from their plant in Nova Scotia? This is a
classic example of a company coming in, buying a local company in this Province,
closing its operations, and importing their product from another province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We commit to sit with the union, and with the company, and with the
stakeholders in the region, to try and find whatever reasonable and sensible
options may be available to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier.
First, I would like to say that there is a rural area in this Province that
has been left high and dry when it comes to transportation. The single easiest
way to corrupt any rural economy in this Province is to cut it off from access
to the outside world.
In Southern Labrador, the marine services have been conformed to cause
decline in economic growth, private airlines have given notice that they are
terminating their services, and government is refusing to make appropriate the
funds needed to clear snow.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today, will he get involved and commit to
keeping the Labrador highway open between Red Bay and Lodge Bay for as long as
the weather permits them to do so this winter?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier does not have to get involved. The member knows that
she took me aside out in the corridor only, I guess, a week or ten days ago, and
asked me if I would give consideration to that.
I undertook, Mr. Speaker, to give consideration to that, and we are, in fact,
giving consideration to that. When we have all of the numbers and we have the
Treasury Board stuff taken care of, then we will make a final decision and the
member will be advised and the people of the area will be advised.
Mr. Speaker, the government is actively giving consideration to that proposal
and I advised the member of that - it must be at least a week or ten days ago -
that we were doing just that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, when questioned in the House on Monday, on Air
Labrador's decision to withdraw services, the minister said that he would work
with us to resolve this issue. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, he refused to even have a
middle-management bureaucrat from the Department of Transportation or Labrador
Affairs sit in on a meeting with the CEOs of the two health boards that serve
Labrador, Air Labrador, and myself, to discuss how medical travel could be
continued in this region.
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the minister today: How was that co-operation, and
how was it helpful in trying to deal with such an important issue in rural
communities in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we go out of our way to try to be co-operative
and work with members on all sides of the House. This hon. member called my
office - I believe it was yesterday; if not, it was the day before - asking if I
could nominate a liaison person in the department for her and others to liaise
with on the Air Labrador file. I did just that, Mr. Speaker.
Then, yesterday after Question Period, she comes to me and advises me that
she has this meeting organized, and can I send this person, who happens to be an
ADM, to that meeting. I said no, Mr. Speaker, we are organizing our own
meetings, as a government. One of them is taking place this afternoon and, when
we have information to report, we will report it to the House. If the House is
not open, we will report it to the public or we will report to the member, but
the member is not running the Department of Transportation and Works, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I think it is ridiculous when bureaucrats in
departments are told not to meet with certain members on certain issues. Mr.
Speaker, I think that is ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, my next question is this. The government has made a decision -
and, again, I obtained the information from the minister's departmental
officials just yesterday - their decision is to shut down The Strait of Belle
Isle service, the Apollo ferry, on January 3.
Mr. Speaker, this is the earliest shutdown of that ferry that we have seen in
five or six years. I ask the minister and I ask the government: In the spirit of
Christmas, will you at least extend the ferry service until about ten days or
two weeks into the new year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon. member, she is wrong
on both counts. No official in my department has ever been told by this minister
not to meet with a Member of the House of Assembly. What I did tell by Assistant
Deputy Minister for Corporate Affairs yesterday is that he had no responsibility
to have his
schedule dictated to by the hon. member just a few hours before he
was supposed to attend a meeting.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the officials -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
All members recognize that in Parliament, particularly in Question Period,
there is going to be a lot of spontaneity and a lot of issues discussed across
the floor of the House. The question has been asked and the hon. minister is
giving an answer. I ask all members if they would give him the courtesy of
addressing the House in his reply.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the second question posed by the hon. member,
in terms of an extension of the Apollo schedule, I do not know who she
was talking to in the department, but bureaucrats in the department know that I
have signed off on an extension to the Apollo schedule, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the implementation of the guiding regulations for fishing guides
in our rural Newfoundland is a major disaster for the guides in our Province.
The agreement on internal trade was signed in 1994, an Agreement in Principle
where steps were taken to protect our guiding industry until now.
Will this government take immediate steps, not minimum qualifications, to
protect their valuable guiding industry, or is this another step towards
privatization of our outdoors?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the member opposite may realize, Mr. Speaker, because they were in
government last year, there were threats by other provinces for trade
retaliation. There were threats for legal implications by other provinces. Those
threats, Mr. Speaker, have come to our Province. This very issue had been
brought to Cabinet on a couple of other occasions, as the Opposition Leader will
verify. This is a very serious issue, and I understand the implication it has
for guides. We had no choice but to allow guides from other provinces to come to
this Province, because of the Internal Agreement on Trade, but we are
investigating ways in which we can protect the guides in this Province and the
livelihood that those guides have.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The allotted time for Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I am asking members on both sides of the House if they would assure that
parliamentary practices can continue.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs, who is presenting a report.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, this is no exemption. I am pleased to table the
2003-2004 annual report of the Department of Transportation and Works.
As well, along with my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Labrador
Affairs, I am pleased to table the 2003-2004 annual report of the Department of
Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports?
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to table the 2003-2004 annual report of the Department of
Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
As well, I am pleased today to table the 2003-2004 reports on the following,
Mr. Speaker: The Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador; the
Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council; the Newfoundland and Labrador Film
Development Corporation; the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Corporation; and
the Marble Mountain Development Corporation.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further reports?
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In accordance with government's commitment on accountability, I am pleased
today to present the 2003-2004 annual report from the MMSB.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to table the reports for the Department of Natural Resources:
the Bull Arm Site Corporation, the Newfoundland and Labrador Crop Insurance
Agency, and Newfoundland and Labrador Livestock Owners Compensation Board. As
well, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier, I want to table the report, the
Annual Performance Report for Executive Council.
MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports?
Notices of Motions.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been given.
Petitions.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider certain matters related to Bill 61.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for
the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Bill 61.
Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House
to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want Motion 3 moved pursuant to Standing Order 47, as listed and read out
on the Order Paper.
CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee refer to Motion 3, Standing Order
All those in favour, aye'?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, just to make sure I am correct in terms of
process and the vote that was just carried, and to make sure that anyone who
might be following the proceedings today is clear. It is my understanding that
what was just carried by the government is a motion that says while we are in a
Committee now on the changes to the Liquor Corporation Act to allow the opening
of the liquor stores for the sale of wine and beer on Sundays, that normally at
this stage of a bill, which is the Committee stage, we could speak as many times
as we like back and forth for ten minutes each, but by virtue of the motion that
was just passed, we are now restricted to one intervention each. Could I have
that clarified by the Chair or the Government House Leader?
CHAIR: What we have reverted to is Standing Order 47, the closure motion,
and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite right. The difference in that
particular motion is that instead of each member being able to speak as often as
they want with intervening speakers, now each member of the Assembly will be
able to speak once, and only once, for a total of twenty minutes each. That is
correct.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will try to use my twenty minutes with respect to
this particular bill now that there has been a limit put on it.
I just wanted to make these few comments, Mr. Chairman, that in my view this
is both a dark day, but I hope for the people of the Province, a very
enlightening day in terms of a real insight into this particular government and
how they operate. I hope I will make the point well enough so people will see
what I mean.
We have a government here that - with respect to this debate, because this
particular bill was never talked about publicly, this change to the liquor sales
act, the Liquor Corporation Act, never talked about, admittedly by the minister,
publicly in the Province. They have been the government for over a year and not
one single soul, on behalf of that government, mentioned that they were actively
thinking about opening up the government run liquor stores and the private
liquor stores for the sale of liquor on a Sunday; wine and hard liquor. It was
never mentioned. The minister, in introducing the bill, acknowledged that just
two days ago, or three days ago, I guess, on Monday, when it surfaced here for
the first time, unlike the Minister of Environment and Conservation who has, at
least on several occasions, talked openly and publicly about the possibility of
Sunday hunting.
I give him some credit for that, because if it is an initiative that a
government is thinking about, a significant change, they should let the public
know so that people can start formulating their thoughts and ideas and maybe
getting involved in some consultation, at least being aware that a change is
occurring.
Here, right out of nowhere, right out of nowhere, comes the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board saying, we are opening the liquor stores
on Sunday. It has never been done in the history of the Province. They never
talked to anybody about it except the liquor board itself, and then came into
the House and, as my colleague from Grand Falls-Buchans has pointed out, the
very minute that the bill was presented to us for our consideration, he was
putting out a press release saying, we are taking the House of Assembly for
granted. We do not care about the debate, we do not care if there is any
backlash, the stores will be open in January. So, he presumed an outcome. That
was only three days ago - no consultation.
Then we said, I bet you will ram this through before Christmas. The
Government House Leader got up and said no, no, no, we do not believe in that.
We are a very open and transparent and accountable government; we just passed a
bill about it. They said, we will give you all the time in the world you need to
debate this.
What do we have today? We just had an acknowledgment by the Chair of the
House that the government, two days later, has changed its mind again. Because,
I can tell you, I have had some representation from constituents in my district
about this. I have not had a chance to go out and have any public meetings about
it. There has not been any extensive consultation or discussion about it, but it
has been a pretty contentious issue in the past, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman.
What do we find today, now, just before what is likely to be the Christmas
break for the Legislature, which means we might not be back here - if last year
is any indication, we certainly will not be back here until some time in the
middle of March to present a Budget and to debate a Budget. So, on what looks
like the last opportunity, where we were guaranteed just two days ago that,
well, we do acknowledge that you only saw this bill for the first time today, we
do acknowledge that we have not even been talking about it publicly to get
people to think that it might be going to happen, two days ago they said: We
will give you every chance you want, under the rules, to speak to it.
The Chairman just acknowledged that normally the rules would say that at this
stage of the debate we could speak back and forth as many times as we wanted,
for ten minutes each, and we could be here two or three days or two or three
weeks doing it, if we wanted to. Now, here is the government changing its mind
again. After making a commitment to us, as members of the Legislature, just two
days ago, that they would not stifle the debate, what do they turn around and do
now, today, when they are hoping that there are not many people paying
attention, because those who are not working are probably out doing their
Christmas shopping? They are probably in the Christmas spirit already. They are
thinking about the good things that they are hoping to celebrate with family and
friends over the next few days. So, when they are hoping that nobody is paying
attention, they will say we will break another promise now that we just made to
the members. We are going to take away your right to speak to this bill. We are
going to give you one more chance. You have twenty minutes, of which I have
fifteen left, to say what I like about this bill, because what they have
determined is they are going to do exactly what the Finance Minister said on
Monday. They do not care about any backlash. They do not care about any
concerns. They do not care about any public opinion. They do not care about a
democratic process. We are going to get one chance to say what we want today,
and then they are going to vote for it.
Well, I can tell you one thing, I will not vote for it. I will not be voting
for it when the vote is called later today. This is my one chance to tell the
world that I will not vote for this bill; but, more telling than anything is
that we have a process which the government committed to us just a few days ago
that it would not be brought to an abrupt end. For some reason - and I will just
say this out loud, too, because this is my own understanding of it. I do not
believe - because I have been here for most of the fifteen years in the same
Legislature with the Government House Leader - this is his doing, because I
believe he respects this Legislature and he respects the democratic process.
I believe that the Leader of their party, and the leader of their government,
the Premier, has said, enough of that place. He has always said that he thought
and thinks that the Legislature is a waste of time. As a matter of fact, he
believes it so much, that is one thing he has said publicly in the last year
since he has been the Premier. He did not say publicly that he was thinking
about opening the liquor stores on Sunday, but he has said publicly, in a
national magazine, Maclean's Magazine , that the House of Assembly is a
waste to time. I guess he must have passed the word along to the Government
House Leader.
We have been here, by the way, a grand total today of sixteen days. From time
to time we get criticized as politicians, because there are many people who
think if you are not in the House of Assembly you are not working. Now, that is
not true. We know, as MHAs on all sides of the House, that there is a lot of
work that we do on behalf of our constituents every single day, Monday to
Friday, Saturdays, Sundays, daytime, nighttime, but there is one group in the
public that often asks: Well, are you fellas in the Legislature? I said, no.
Well, boy, pretty good, you are still off on your holidays are you?
Now, we know the difference but there is a school of thought in the public
about the fact that if you are not in the Legislature and you got elected as a
Member of the Legislature and if you are not in there, I guess, you are off.
Guess how many days we have been in here? Sixteen long, long days, an
opportunity to debate in a democratic, open House of Assembly, important and
serious issues. But, I guess the Premier has decided, because it is all a waste
of time, that I bet you he said to the Government House Leader: That's enough
of that now. You have all had sixteen days. Don't be talking about that
anymore. Shut it down. Shut it down because that whole place is a waste of time.
Because he still believes, as a person, that he is the CEO of a company.
He has also said, by the way, publicly, the Premier of the Province I am
talking about, when he was asked a question about his Cabinet shuffle, Mr.
Chairman, the Cabinet shuffle, when the former Minister of Health and Community
Services decided not to be a yes person, decided they did not like the
management style, and was replaced; when the Premier was bragging about the fact
that they had a wonderful new Cabinet now, an improved Cabinet because they had
gotten rid of the Member for Topsail. He was delighted she was gone. He had to
get rid of the person who was going to have their own mind and get another sheep
in there. Bring in another one of the lemmings. Bring in the old yes man from
St. John's East, who will say yes to anything to stay in the Cabinet with the
Premier.
There is another one over there, the Member for Gander, out there bragging in
Gander at their convention that he was appointed Whip and that he had leap-frogged
a whole bunch of other people, like parliamentary secretaries and was on his
way, sure and certain, the next step, he said, into the Cabinet. His poor old
friends, the parliamentary secretaries from Mount Pearl, Trinity North and Lake
Melville, who thought they had the inside track, and the parliamentary assistant
from down in St. Mary's-The Capes -
MR. MANNING: Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. GRIMES: Placentia & St. Mary's, I apologize to him. They all
thought they were on an inside track. Sure, the Member for CBS thought he was on
the inside track before. He was the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier,
himself. He got bypassed completely, and here is the Member for Gander thinking
that he has jumped ahead of the whole lot of them now because he is the Whip. I
can tell you one thing, we know about the role of the Whip, on either side of
the House. I can tell you one thing, the Whip has about as much authority over
the elected member, in terms of real influence about what they are going to do
and not do, as the man from Mars. I can tell you that, and it does not matter
what side of the House you are on. So you have that kind of thing.
He is right anxious, all excited, the Member for Gander, because he might get
a chance to go into the Cabinet and say: Yes, Sir. No, Sir. Three bags full,
Sir. Do you want the House open today? Oh, yes, Sir, we will keep the House open
today. Am I allowed to speak to the liquor bill today? Oh, yes, Sir. Do you want
me to speak today? You don't want me to speak on Thursday? Okay, Sir, I will
not speak on Thursday. Which way would you like me to vote, Sir? Oh, I will vote
for that, Sir. Thank you very much. I can't wait to get into Cabinet so I can
do that. Isn't that wonderful? He is really going to impress the people from
Gander; really going to impress the people from Gander. At least when you are in
the caucus and not in the Cabinet you have a scattered chance, like a couple of
members did the other night, to stand up and say: I think I might be a little
bit independent. I am not in that Cabinet. I can speak my own mind for a minute.
I might even vote against something, even though all the rest of the crowd are
voting for it.
Here you have it today - because I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, with every
bone in my body, that what is going on here today is an affront to democracy, it
is not the doing of the Government House Leader. I will go to my grave believing
that, because I have too much respect for that man. That he would not stand here
in this Legislature - and I can show you the copy of Hansard, Mr. Chairman,
where he actually said: We will not stifle the debate. You will be given every
opportunity to ask all your questions. You can move whatever amendments that you
want because we believe in a democratic debate.
To be here two days later, putting a motion to the table that says: You get
one more chance to speak before we vote, and that's it. I am going to let you
have the courtesy of speaking one more time. By the way, when you are speaking
you are not allowed to move an amendment, even if you want to. They are taking
away that right, Mr. Chairman, because this is the stage where we would move
amendments if we wanted to. So, on the record - but I can understand that even
from time to time he has to say: Yes, Sir. He has to say: Yes, Sir, to the
Premier.
The Premier has decided, enough of that democracy. Don't be wasting anymore
of your time in that Legislature because that is a waste of time. That is his
view. Never mind that there are some people out in the public who might like to
have some time to talk about this Liquor Corporation change. Don't even give
them a chance. Support what the Minister of Finance and the President of
Treasury Board said. He said: We don't care what people say? Now, that is why
I am hoping that people will find it very enlightening, because that is the
attitude. The media said: Well, Mr. Minister, what if there is a backlash? He
said: We don't care if there is a backlash. We don't care about that. Well,
a backlash means that the people of the Province that you are elected to serve
might have some concerns about what you are doing. Now, I am not saying it has
particularly surfaced or not but there was not even any opportunity to ask them
if they had a problem with it. He said, I don't care if they have a problem or
not. Think of the attitude that is embodied in that kind of a statement. We don't
care what the people say.
Boy, did we ever see a lesson in the attitude and another example of it today
with the Minister of Transportation and Works, when being asked about a group of
people on a road in the local service district in Goobies, who have invested in
their homes because they were in an area of that local service district, where
regardless of the political stripe, governments for thirty-two years had
serviced and plowed the road. Never mind what class you called it. Who cares
what class you called it? If you had been there and ever since you had lived
there, regardless of whether it was a Liberal government or a Conservative
government, that the road had always been maintained and cleared, and for a
budget reason only, money ahead of people - listen to it: money first, people
second. The minister says: We can't do it anymore. That road does not count
anymore; thirty-two years later. Then, when he is asked: Well, what about a road
leading to a park though? - that nobody lives on full-time, by the way. Not one,
single year-round livyer on the road, not the one. Cabins -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: I am not talking about Deer Park. I am talking about the road
into the Humber Falls, into the great falls in the Humber.
AN HON. MEMBER: Big Falls.
MR. GRIMES: Big Falls. I have been there, by the way. I was a tourism
minister. I have been up that road. Cabins going up the side of the road; cabin
owners going up the side of the road. It was a class 4 road. The kind that in
the budget they said: We are not doing any class 4 roads ever again. We are
cutting them off. There was a bit of a protest, I guess, from the member to the
Premier saying: Well, you know, the people up on that road would like to get
back and forth to their cabins on a better road. The excuse you can give for
fixing up the road is that there is a park in there. Well, the park has been in
there for thirty years, too.
The most telling thing, what did the minister say today in answering the
question as to: Why did the government decide to take $150,000? They stand up
today, the minister of innovation, trade and rural destruction, saying: we had
to clean up the financial mess that you left. We have no money for this, we have
no money for that, we have no money for something else, but what did they have
over in Humber Valley, that the Premier personally presented the cheque,
$150,000, to take a road going to a park and upgrade it so that they could put
it into another category so that they could clear the road for cabin owners?
I ask the Member for Humber Valley to read the newspaper reports from The
Western Star about: the cabin owners on the road were very pleased to
hear of the announced - and she is trying to say there are no cabins up there.
Mr. Chairman, the point is this: when asked to compare that road, which was a
class 4, to a road that has been plowed every year for thirty-two years, where
people have made their investments, raised their families, built their homes,
because it was always taken care of - here is the most telling part - the
Minister of Transportation and Works says: Well, we had to do that road over
there where the park is because the park is a provincial asset; but, you know,
the people who live on Old Mill Road in Goobies -
AN HON. MEMBER: And Beachy Cove Road
MR. GRIMES: I am not too worried about Beachy Cove Road. Them, too, but
the ones we were talking about specifically were Old Mill Road. He said, they
are not an asset.
Now, that is very, very telling. I ask the people of the Province to keep
that in mind. That is a minister of the Crown, being asked a serious question,
saying that a provincial park that some salmon anglers go up to and visit - all
optional, by the way, and some cabin owners live on the road every now and then,
good for them, but we invested $150,000 into that road so we could let people
get to an asset that a few people might use once in a while. But a little road
that would take less than $15,000 in any one year to maintain and service, they
would not make that investment - less than 10 per cent of it - because the
people were not considered an asset.
That is why I say, Mr. Chairman, I am always intrigued and I listen very
carefully when members opposite speak, the few times that they do, and I hope
other people listen as closely as I do because it is very telling in what you
hear when they start to talk. You learn about their attitudes, you learn about
their true beliefs, and all we heard today, there was another answer from the
Minister of Environment and Conservation saying: Oh, we cannot help those guides
because there have been a few comments about maybe some trade sanctions from
other provinces. What a joke, Mr. Chairman.
The Agreement on Internal Trade was signed over ten years ago. We have always
managed to protect the guides in Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not want to
protect the guides. Now they are going to use the Agreement on Internal Trade as
an excuse to do nothing. Well, there have not been any trade sanctions for ten
years and there will not be any.
Can you imagine the Government of Nova Scotia saying they are going to invoke
trade sanctions against Newfoundland and Labrador because half a dozen people
want to come over here and pretend they are guides on our rivers and take jobs
away from our people, go and complain to the government, so they are going to
stop doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador? How foolish! Nothing could be
more ridiculous; and they stand up with straight faces, as if that is a
legitimate answer, Mr. Chairman.
I know my time has run short with respect to this, and I know the group
opposite would love to hear some more facts if I was given another opportunity
to speak today, but I am not allowed, Mr. Chairman. I got elected to come in
here and speak about these issues, but they have just passed a motion, they just
voted for a motion, that says the Member for Exploits is not allowed to speak
again today about this particular issue, because the Premier has sent out a
decree saying: Enough of that! I want to go home for Christmas. I don't want
to be in there, in that Legislature. Get out of there. Close that place down.
Don't talk about that liquor bill. Don't talk about it. Go home out of it.
That is enough. Shut them down.
The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the other day, was saying: Gag
them. Well, I will tell you what we got today. He got his request fulfilled. He
got his request fulfilled. We have been muzzled. Now, they can do it and they
will answer to the people for it, Mr. Chairman, because it is very telling what
this government is doing today. We will abide by the rules, and we will be
officially gagged today, but I believe everybody in the Province will understand
that the group that just passed the openness, transparency and accountability
bill, and said you can have as long as you want to talk about it, just changed
their minds again, just broke another commitment, and just told us to button up,
go home, and stop talking about these issues.
Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to speak to the act,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.
I guess my first question would be: Where did the amendment to the act come
from? I know that is a question that I am being asked by my constituents, and
the e-mails I am getting are that: Where did this come from? It has come out of
left field. We know that when Sunday shopping was introduced, the people who now
form the government, who were then in Opposition, were vehemently opposed to
Sunday shopping. Now they are using the excuse of saying: Well, the government
of the day did not go far enough. So they want to now make it possible for
people in the Province to buy alcohol on Sunday in the liquor establishments
and/or the private enterprises.
I am really indifferent to it, Mr. Chair, whether or not people are able to
buy alcohol on Sunday. Whether they are, it really does not matter to me, but
what I would like to have the opportunity to do is speak to my constituents,
speak to the people I represent, and find out what they think about this. Maybe
they care about it. Maybe they do not care about it. I am standing here today
speaking to an amendment to
an act, and I really cannot speak on behalf of my
constituents because I do not know what they would like me to say. I do not know
if they would like me to support it. I do not know if they would like me to not
support it. So I am standing here not knowing how my constituents feel about
this particular piece of legislation, and no opportunity to canvass them.
The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has said he did not
feel the need to do consultations. Well, just because he did not feel the need
to consult with his constituents does not mean that the rest of us do not feel
the need to consult with ours. I cannot believe, standing here today and looking
across the floor, that they are not members on the government side who would
like to have the same opportunity that I would like to have, to consult with my
constituents. I am sure they would like to consult with theirs. I know there are
several over there who are also questioning where this amendment came from. I
believe that they, too, are feeling that the government does not care about the
concerns of their constituents, does not care about their concerns as Members of
the House of Assembly.
We were elected to speak on behalf of our constituents. We were elected to
represent them, to bring their concerns forward. If you do not know what they
are, because the government has not given us the opportunity to go and consult
with our constituents, we stand here today being forced to vote on a bill
without having the opportunity to do what we were elected to do. I think it is a
sad day, but it is just another example of how undemocratic this government is,
how often they break promises, how often they make promises with one breath and
then break them with the next.
Of course, I can stand here today and talk about the health care facility in
Grand Bank, which was promised. Then, once the government formed, the promise
was broken. I can talk about the FPI decision, and the fact that this government
has the authority to tell FPI that they really should look out for the best
interests of rural communities in our Province. I can talk about the closure of
the HRE offices. I can talk about the fact that they are now using the new
health care money to pay down on the debt. Forget about the waiting lists out
there. Forget about the need for improved health care in our Province. What has
become apparent is that this government cares only for the bottom line. Where is
the social conscience?
Now, I know it is a right-wing government, it is a conservative government,
but you all represent people, and people take precedence. You must know that
people have concerns, whether it is health care, education, jobs. I guess the
fact that you have slashed 4,000 jobs tells us really how much you care about
employment in this Province. Today, I am standing not knowing how my
constituents feel about a piece of legislation that I am going to be asked to
vote on today.
I do know that I have gotten e-mails. Some are opposed, and some, like me,
are indifferent, but I would really like that opportunity. As I said earlier, I
cannot believe there aren't people across the floor who would like the same
opportunity before voting on a piece of legislation that can be a significant
decision for some people in our Province. There are people in our Province who
believe that six days a week is enough time to purchase alcohol, and, if you
want to drink on Sunday, buy it on Saturday, if you want to consume it in your
home. As it is, if you want to drink it on Sunday, go to an alcohol
establishment.
There are people out there who are asking the question: Where is this coming
from? Why is the government so adamant on pushing this through in this sitting
of the House of Assembly? It is not like it is a significant piece of
legislation in terms of, it has to be done today. It is not like it is life or
death. It is about whether or not we are going to open establishments to sell
alcohol on Sunday, where the people can go to the liquor stores and buy it on
Sundays or to private establishments where they sell it.
It is serious decision for some people and, unfortunately, those people are
totally ignored. Their concerns aren't even being addressed, aren't even
being considered. As the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is
on record as saying, he doesn't care. Public backlash; I don't care. I am
sure what he is thinking is that: we are in the second year of our mandate, we
have two more years to go, people will forget about this. I really don't care.
People do care, and I am hoping that people will remember the attitude of this
government.
How undemocratic to bring in a piece of legislation and force it through when
it really isn't significant in terms of the time frame of getting this done.
Two days to consider whether or not we should amend the Liquor Corporation Act
to allow those entities that sell alcohol from their private corner stores, or
Liquor Corporation stores, whether or not they should be able to do that on a
Sunday.
The irony, Mr. Chair, is that people can buy alcohol now. I mean, you don't
need to have it open on a Sunday if it is going to offend people. I am thinking
particularly about our churches and our church leaders. If it is going to offend
people, why do it? It is available, people can buy it six days of the week, so
why offend people?
I know why this government is going full force ahead with this, the bottom
line which is the basis for every decision made by this government. Forget about
the people, forget about their concerns, forget about their needs, whether it is
health care, whether it is education, forget it. It is the bottom line, because
there will be more revenue for the Treasury. That is why it is being forced
through. The sooner it happens the better, the more dollars will come into the
Treasury, and forget about those people in our Province who would prefer that
this didn't happen. Unfortunately, they are not being considered, their
concerns are not being heard.
I don't see anyone on the government side standing up and speaking out for
them. I am sure, in your own districts, there are people who are questioning why
you would force this particular piece of legislation through. There is no
rationale for it, other than more money for the provincial Treasury. To date, I
have not heard one person from government side stand and speak in support of it.
So, I would assume that absence of any kind of comment means that you support
it.
I would garner that you are, in fact, receiving e-mails like I am receiving
e-mails telling you that this is not the right thing to do, or maybe just asking
why you are doing it. I would love to know your answer. I would love to read
your e-mails that are going back to your constituents about why the government
is forcing through this particular piece of legislation and taking away my
right, as an elected Member of this House of Assembly, to consult with my
constituents about this particular amendment to the Liquor Corporation Act. You
are taking away my right. You are taking away the rights of my constituents to
speak on an issue that may very well be significant for people in our districts,
people who will be offended by this decision. Did you not think, when you talk
about Sunday shopping, why this was not included? Did you stop and think for a
minute why the previous government did not include this particular amendment or
include opening of alcohol establishments to sell alcohol on Sundays? There was
a reason, and today we are here trying to understand why the government would
insist on doing this, when there is absolutely no need, no need, other than the
almighty dollar. At some point this government is going to have to put the
concerns of people over the bottom line, and it is certainly not happening with
this particular piece of legislation.
When you bring in closure on a piece of legislation, my understanding is that
it is on a significant piece of legislation, but nobody could argue that with
respect to this particular amendment. So, whether or not the members on the
other side have been told: You must just stand by and approve this, vote in
favour of this, because I do not hear any comment from the other side about
whether you support it or you do not support it. I cannot believe that you are
not hearing from your constituents, like I am hearing from mine, questioning why
this is happening. Not so much that they care, but where did it come from? What
is this government about? Why is it that you have to bring in legislation and
force it through when it is not a significant piece of legislation?
I feel offended, and I know my constituents feel offended, to think that they
are not even being considered. They are the people of the Province who are going
to have to live with your decision, especially the people who will have to work
now in these establishments. Obviously, it will mean that one day they had will
not be available to them. There are people in our Province who still consider
Sundays to be a special day, a day to spend with families. It begs a question,
whether or not, by doing this, we are making alcohol more accessible to people?
Because we are making it more accessible by making it available on seven days of
the week and not just six.
Again, I repeat, I am indifferent to this but I really would like to know how
my constituents feel. Again, I repeat, I am offended by an action of this
government to try and make the decision for me, to take away my ability to make
an informed decision here. The trouble we have, again, with this piece of
legislation is that it is just not necessary at this particular point in time.
Mr. Chair, for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to so
openly say he does not care about a public backlash speaks volumes about how
they view the people of this Province. If there were to be a backlash it would
mean that there are concerns, that there are issues which people have with this.
Anybody in their right mind would have to be concerned about a public backlash
because the only time members of the public speak up and speak out is when they
are being negatively impacted. So, he should be concerned, I tell the Minister
of Finance and President of Treasury Board. Just as I say to every member
opposite, you should be concerned about a public backlash because it means that
people have issues, that people are concerned about what is happening here with
this amendment. To say that he does not feel a need for public consultations,
anybody in their right mind would know that it is always better to consult with
the people whom you represent. It is an opportunity to hear what they have to
say so that when you make decisions, you make informed ones.
Unfortunately, what we are seeing here today is just another example of a
government who, after only two years, or not quite two years in power, have just
taken it upon themselves to ride roughshod over the rest of us, to tell the
people how things are going to be, to tell the people of the Province it is this
way or no way. We have become so familiar with that, because that is clearly the
attitude of our Premier, his way or no way. Of course, if he does not get his
way, as we read in this newspaper
article about his disagreement over
compensation with respect to the cable deal. It says: Williams, who had not seen
the agreement between MacDonald and Henley and did not take
part in their
discussions, went ballistic - according to testimony. Now, I am sure the members
opposite do not want to encounter the Premier when he goes ballistic. That must
be a pretty sight. So, obviously, it is quite easy for him to do. But stand up,
be an independent figure. Follow the lead of your colleague, the former Minister
of Health, who, when she did not like a particular management style of the
Premier and who knew that what he was doing was wrong, stood her ground, had the
courage to stand up and be counted. She wasn't a follower. She wasn't his
(inaudible) and I commend her for her actions.
We are in a situation today where, I think, a lot of the members on the
opposite side are being followers. They are not standing and speaking to this
particular amendment because they have been told: this is going through one way
or the other, because that is what happens when you invoke closure. That is what
happens when you invoke closure; you essentially tell the Members of the House
of Assembly that you do not count, that we want this piece of legislation and we
are going to get it one way or the other. If you are not going to give it to us
in the time frame that we wanted, which is today, then we are just going to
invoke closure. You have no say. It does not matter how you feel about it. It
does not matter that you did not have time to consult with your constituents.
Nothing matters, because this is the way it is going to happen.
It is an affront to those of us who were elected to come into this House of
Assembly to represent the views of our constituents. We were not put here to
just rubber-stamp whatever the government wants to put through, and you weren't,
by the way - even though you are members of the government - elected to
rubber-stamp whatever the government wants to happen. You were elected as an MHA.
You were not elected as a minister of the Crown, and I think we should never
lose sight that the important job is the one of an MHA. That is the job that is
the prestigious one. That is the one where you get to represent the people who
elected you. That is the job where you actually get to stand and fight for your
constituents.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her time has expired.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would remind everybody in the House, that particular job is a job that we
should all hold in high esteem, and insist on having the opportunity to
represent the interests of our constituents.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to rise today and say a few words on Bill 61,
An Act To Amend
The Liquor Corporation Act.
I have to say to the government, it is again another piece of legislation
brought before this House, absolutely no notice, being passed in a couple of
days without any input whatsoever from the people of the Province. I think it is
a classic example of this government taking the route that it is easier to get
forgiveness than it is permission. I think that is a philosophy that they have
been following on a few pieces of legislation that they have passed through this
House during this session.
Mr. Chairman, the idea or the concept of having liquor stores open on Sundays
is not one that sits well, I would think, with a lot of people around this
Province. We have six days a week now in which liquor stores in this Province
are open. I cannot recall anyone from the Province lobbying hard or complaining
or voicing their opinion in the public that six days wasn't long enough.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there will be people going to the liquor
stores on Sundays, there is absolutely no question about that, once they are
open, but I think this government should remember that Sundays is a day,
probably the only day of the week, where a lot of employees have the opportunity
to have a rest day with their families.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that many people do not have that privilege
because of the type of work that they are involved in, because of the type of
operation that they work for, where operations are going for twenty-four hours a
day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year. In situations like that, Mr.
Chairman, there is no alternative but to work Sundays when you are on a shift
work rotation system, but in lines of work where the volume of business can be
handled sufficiently on a six-day work week, then I really do not see the
purpose of having a seven-day work week so that the same amount can be spread
over a greater period of time, and impacting upon the lives of a lot of people.
Mr. Chairman, the liquor stores in this Province have been doing quite well
on a six-day-a-week operation. I do not see any necessity at all for them to be
pushing to have their stores open on Sundays. Who has this been driven by? It is
not being driven by the public, Mr. Chairman. It is being driven by the Liquor
Corporation itself, through the minister, to this Houses of Assembly, to pass
legislation that would allow them to be open on Sundays.
It is almost a bit of greed, Mr. Chairman. It is almost like they feel they
are losing something that they cannot get back unless they remain open on a
seven-day-a-week basis. Who are they in competition with? Who are they losing
to? There is nobody that I can see, Mr. Chairman, who has an unfair advantage
over the Liquor Corporation in this Province.
I heard the minister talk about the number of establishments that alcohol can
be obtained from on Sundays, but they are restaurants, bars and hotels in the
Province that have been doing that for years. Nobody can sell liquor or spirits
or wine by volumes of bottles on a Sunday. So, there is no unfair competitive
advantage to anyone over the Liquor Corporation.
I have to say also, Mr. Chairman, that when Sunday shopping came to this
Province, I guess that opened the floodgates, if you want, for a lot of other
things to take place on Sundays that probably were not traditional up to that
point in time. That was something that I vehemently opposed, Mr. Chairman,
stores opening on Sunday. I am sure members opposite can remember the debates
that they had, that took place in the House of Assembly at that time, that
permitted that to happen. That was unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that legislation
was passed in 1998, I believe, that would allow Sunday shopping to take place.
As I say, that sort of set the trend for other things to happen on Sunday that
prior to that did not happen.
I am pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that even though Sunday shopping is
permitted in the Province, in my District of Labrador West there is no Sunday
shopping taking place other than what always took place prior to the legislation
passing through the House that allowed it to take place. None of the stores that
were open six days a week prior to Sunday shopping coming into effect are open
today. We have the corner stores, of course, the convenience stores and the gas
stations, things of that nature, but other than that none of the major outlets
or grocery stores are open on Sundays in Labrador West. That is something I am
proud to say, Mr. Chairman, because there was not a demonstrated need to have it
take place. I am proud of the fact that the people in my district have chosen
not to open their stores on Sunday and spread the same amount of money over a
seven-day period rather than a six-day period.
I also want to ask the minister about the cost, because there will be extra
cost to the Corporation in opening on Sundays. You have Sunday premiums in all
the collective agreements, for working on Sundays. Many agreements contain the
provision for double time on Sundays, when people are working, or
time-and-a-half at a minimum if your forty hours are not in. There will be extra
costs generated to the Commission as a result of being open on Sundays.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask this question, because I do not think it has been
asked yet and it has not been answered. The Liquor Corporation say that they
want to have the right to be open on Sundays, and would allow liquor stores and
agencies to sell wine and spirits on all days other than stat holidays. I
wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister could answer: If the Liquor Corporation
decides that their stores will open, does that mean that all of the stores that
they have under their control in the Province will have to open as well?
Because, the liquor store owned by the Commission, by the Liquor Corporation, in
my district is in the middle of a shopping mall. I wonder if they have looked
ahead to see how they would get access to that mall when all other stores are
closed on Sundays and are not open.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the government has met the test of proof that
they should have to meet in a case like this, to change their operations from
six days a week to seven days a week Not only that, when we say a six-day
operation, we are not exactly talking about an operation that is open from 10:00
in the morning to 5:30 or 6:00 in the afternoon. They are open now late into the
night, each day of the week that they are open, so it is not as if there are not
enough hours in the week for them to sell the amount of alcohol that they want
to sell to the public of this Province.
Mr. Chairman, this bill that they will pass today has not been well thought
out, it has not been publicly debated throughout the regions of this Province.
Nobody in this House of Assembly has had much opportunity to talk to anybody in
the districts that they represent, in finding out how they feel about the liquor
stores being open on Sundays, because the passage of this bill, in allowing
liquor stores to open on Sundays, is making a fundamental change, a major
change, in the way that we, in this Province, view Sunday shopping, and the
ability - we are departing from a long-standing tradition of liquor stores being
closed on Sundays, and to deviate from that solely because the Liquor
Corporation wants to make more profits.
I do not know, Mr. Chairman. We heard a lot in the news a couple of years ago
about all the money that was spent refurbishing offices. Maybe they want to
refurbish again, and need the extra money to waste doing what they did a number
of years ago, and the amount of money they spent in refurbishing offices up at
the Corporation headquarters.
Mr. Chairman, I think this plan to open liquor stores on Sundays in the
Province is ill-conceived, not well thought out, did not receive any input from
the public of this Province, and the minister is acting simply on the greedy
wishes of the Liquor Corporation, who want to improve their bottom line. They do
not care what consequences other people in our Province face, as long as they
meet the bottom line that they can, hopefully, according to them, try and
improve things and compete with other businesses that do not exist in
competition with them in order to make this happen.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the government, in future, when you are bringing in
legislation, particularly pieces of legislation that change the way things have
happened historically in this Province, it is important that the people of the
Province be consulted in having a say on the issue, whatever it might be, and
that government be governed by the wishes and the will of the people, not by
establishments like a liquor corporation or somebody who has a personal view in
Cabinet on what should take place.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thought today maybe that I would not speak on this because I had issued a
press release on Monday, actually, when I discovered that Bill 61 was going to
be brought forward. I must say, I expressed my comments, I think, pretty good on
Bill 61,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, with The Telegram on
Monday, because I was shocked and taken aback that this bill would just appear
from nowhere. You know, there was no warning, there was no mention of it.
I reviewed the PC Blue Book, their battle plan, their action plan for the
four years following their election. There was no mention of opening liquor
stores in this Province. As a matter of fact, I thought it was the very least I
would see come forth from this government, to open up liquor agency stores on
Sundays, considering that they were a party who fought so adamantly about Sunday
shopping. The Minister of Finance, himself, the other day, admitted: Oh, yes, I
am opposed to Sunday shopping, but the government of day, he went on further to
say, did not go far enough.
Now, does that make any sense, Mr. Chairman? Does that make any sense? The
government of the day did not go far enough, but he was against it so he is
opening up the stores to sell liquor on Sundays. You know, I don't know. I don't
think this bill is just about
An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. This
bill is about: We are the government, and we are going to do what we want to do
when we want to do it. That is what this is about. This bill was tabled in this
House on Monday and, lo and behold, in Tuesday's paper, what appears? The
minister responsible for this saying that the stores will open in January, 2005.
Well, I say, what about the people of this Province who might want to express
some concerns over this? It is pretty convenient. It is the busiest time of the
year for the people of this Province, there is no doubt about it. Christmas
preoccupies everybody. The last thing people are doing in this Province today, I
would say, especially on a Thursday afternoon, going into a weekend - they are
getting ready to get their Christmas shopping done, their last-minute details,
preparing for company, family and friends coming home, doing that. That is their
priority, not sitting down reading newspapers.
I might add, too, that there are parts of this Province that have not gotten
wind of this yet. There is no word on this, because I can tell you, there are
parts or rural Newfoundland who are not privileged to a daily newspaper. They
depend, I guess, on the limited number of newspapers that might hit them by
Saturday, or by the local Robinson Blackmore paper when it is printed. I know my
own paper - for instance, this bill will be passed before The Compass is
even printed on Sunday. I know the editor, Mr. Bowman, is out there now in
Carbonear doing the last minute collection for his paper. He will work most of
the weekend to put together the information to put in Tuesday's paper when it
goes to the householder.
I have already heard from a number of people who picked up some of the things
from the various media outlets concerning this bill. I was not going to speak
today. I say to the Member for Topsail - I bumped into her in the parking lot
today and said: No, I do not think I will speak to it. I have already said what
I had to say, but the more calls I received over lunch, the more I realized I
had to, because many people thought the bill was something that I had something
to do with, and it is not. The only thing I want to say, that I have had to do
with this bill, is speak against it. Speak against it, not on the principle of
what might be in that bill, but on the principle of how this bill is being
pushed forward on the people of this Province.
Tuesday night we stayed here until after 12:00 o'clock. We stayed here to
pass a bill on openness, accountability and transparency. That is what the bill
was all about. Lo and behold, I find out that I am standing here today talking
about something that was not covered in that bill; something that bill should
have done away with. That is sheer arrogance of trying to jam a bill through the
House of Assembly, thrust something down the throats of the people of this
Province, in three days. I find it just too much to fathom. This bill has blind
sided the public. As I said, there are places in this Province who will not even
know about this until next week, that this bill was passed.
Now, we are dealing with rural communities, rural parts of this Province. We
have existed for centuries without buying liquor on Sundays, and I am sure that
we can go for another little while, another few weeks, or another few months
until the people of this Province get an opportunity to put full input into this
particular bill. I do not know what the rush is. I honestly do not know what the
rush is to have this bill done today, other than the fact that it is to appease
the Minister of Finance about his
article that he had in the paper the next day
saying that the liquor agency stores and the liquor stores will be open in
January of 2005. That is the only reason I can see, or either that it is to
appease the Premier because they do not want him to get upset and get riled up
as he did with Chris Henley, when Chris Henley sent him a bill for his services
regarding the communications deal.
Mr. Chairman, the government of this Province has a monopoly on the sale of
liquor. There is no rush. It is not like there is somebody coming in - or at
least I hope there's not somebody coming in from outside who is going to
corner the market on liquor sales in this Province. There is no rush. We have
not heard from the churches. I would say that many of the churches do not know
about this, and there is a good reason why. I think a lot of the people who are
attending churches are going to their choir practices for the Christmas services
next weekend. You can be sure of that. I know that is where most of my friends
were last night and Tuesday night when I was in here; not that I am a singer
because I am not, unfortunately. I would love to be, but that is where most of
the people are right now, in church practicing for Christmas carols and the
Christmas service.
So, Mr. Chairman, I say again, there is no urgency for this bill to be passed
here this afternoon, in a very limited period of time. You know, it is a case of
lacing up the old hobnail boots, as some of the members from the other side used
to say, and giving it to them. Kick this bill, we will drive this through. We do
not need to let the people know that this is going to happen. This will be
great. Nobody will even notice this until it is too late, when you drive past
the liquor store some time in January and say: Oh, yeah, that is nice. That is
open on Sunday; people on their way to church. I do not think that is
appropriate.
I say, Madam Chair, this bill flies straight in the face of accountability
and transparency. It flies straight in the face. I thought when we did this
accountability and transparency, the bill on accountability and transparency
would mean that the people would get a chance to know what the government is
going to do, what their projections would be, what business they are bringing
before the House. I remember last spring we sat here in the House and somebody
questioned the Premier about his trust fund that he had established. He said:
oh, no, no, no, I am at arm's-length to all of that. I have nothing to do with
it. The other day, on November 2, in the Western Star , here was the
Premier's Executive Assistant - I think here name is Linda Roche - she was
out there presenting a cheque, on behalf of the Williams Family Foundation, in
Corner Brook. I have to ask: How can a political person, or an Executive
Assistant to the Premier, not be involved politically with the family trust
fund? Accountability - it just doesn't make sense, and there is nobody
answering these questions. The members opposite must condone it. They don't
see anything wrong with what is happening here. I am the fourth speaker from
this side of the House today without any intervention from the other side. I
just can't believe what is happening here.
I will tell you what it is all about. I will tell you how I figured this out,
what this is all about, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, you were a great advocate
against Sunday shopping; a great advocate. I remember listening to your very
passionate speeches about taking parents away from their kids, the great
passionate speech that you used to make. As a matter of fact, we were here all
night long - that was before I was elected, but I remember seeing you in the
House here, getting on with these great passionate speeches about families being
broken up. I have to say, families being broken up over buying a few groceries
and a bit of clothes, that sort of thing - what about the families that might
get broken up now over more liquor being sold on Sundays. That is no impact
there at all! You know, it is amazing. Feeding a family, working six days a
week, and the only chance they might have - I remember all the arguments to and
fro. It is quite amazing how a year and a few months changes the whole scenario
and the whole philosophy of how somebody thinks.
Do you know what this bill is all about? Very cutely, the spokesperson for
the Newfoundland Liquor Commission says, it will add another couple of million
dollars to our bottom line. That is what it is. That is what I believe it is. In
the Minister of Finance's rush to get a few more dollars for the bottom line,
the old hobnail boots are on again today, and this bill is going to get booted
through. Never mind next week about the people out in Salmon Cove or Victoria or
Freshwater or Carbonear or Harbour Grace or Perry's Cove finding out in their
local paper that the government is thinking about - this is the cute part -
opening stores on Sunday to sell liquor. Guess what I will have to tell them
come Tuesday, when they read their paper? It is too late, the stores are already
open. They will be open the first week in January. Bang-o! Right over the goal
post go the people and their wishes. Don't let them see what is happening.
We talk about the bottom line, and we talk about people's wishes. My
colleague, the Member for Bellevue, is trying to get some answers about his
constituency, about a road not being plowed. I have a road not being plowed in
my constituency. I have two of them, actually. On Noel's Road there lives a
pregnant lady, Stacey Slade, and last night her big concern was, how she was
going to get down that road if she had to go to the hospital when her time came
to deliver her baby. I have two little girls who are going to school this year -
Scott Young's two little girls - who live in Gadden's Mash. The plow went by
them last year and got them out. These two little toddlers, little girls, have
to climb out now probably about 800 feet because, quite interestingly enough,
the plow goes in, stops at a point, comes back out, and goes in around to
another house, and it is the same distance as if they went right around - but,
no, no, we are not going to do that.
I might add, these are not cabin roads. These are homes where people have
lived for a period of time. When we say class 4 cabin roads -
MR. BARRETT: They are not an asset.
MR. SWEENEY: No, they are not an asset. That is true, I say to my
colleague from Bellevue - but, they are an asset. They are an asset in my books.
They are an asset in my heart, to see those two little girls going through that.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is why, when I was minister, (inaudible).
MR. SWEENEY: Exactly.
So, what about the people? Where do the people come? How do we ever get the
people first and foremost in the eyes and hearts of this government? How do we
ever do it?
I hear someone over there grumping: Boys, oh boys, oh boys! Well, I have a
right to speak for my constituents. I have a right to speak for Stacey Slade, I
have a right to speak for those two little girls, and I am going to do that. I
have also a right for the people out there, to speak for those who do not want
to have their liquor stores open on Sunday. I have that right. If they do not
want them open, they should be heard; and, if they do want them open, they
should be heard. Not in the format of a bill being dropped on us on Monday and,
on Tuesday, in the paper, the minister saying we are opening - you know, the
closure was invoked yesterday but, guess what? Closure was actually invoked on
Tuesday, when the minister said that we are going ahead. What is a little flak?
What is a little kickback? We are going ahead.
Now, what is the urgency? There is nobody else out there selling liquor on
Sundays. There is not a liquor store, there is nowhere in this Province you can
go, unless it is a government licensed agency store or the government store
itself; you cannot buy liquor. So, what is the rush? There is nobody else out
there. It is not as though we get one of these giant box stores coming in here
and saying we are selling liquor January 1 and, government, you back off because
we have the jump on you. That is not the case. Government has the monopoly on
selling liquor in this Province, but it seems now they also have a monopoly on
our freedom and on the freedom of the people, that we are not allowed to be able
to bring back the concerns of the people here. Because I would like to have a
weekend, at least, in my district to go home and find our for sure, instead of
the few people who have contacted me either by e-mail or by phone over the past
little while.
That is what this bill is all about. It is not like we are passing a health
care bill here. We are not passing something of extreme urgency, where there is
a disaster in some part of the Province. It is not about that. It is not about a
part of this Island that is isolated, that cannot get food, get them in. It is
not about that at all. It is about selling liquor on Sundays, and we have to do
it in three days. It does not make any sense why this should happen. That is why
I am going to speak against this bill.
Mr. Chairman, you were part of this debate in this House over Sunday
shopping, and you heard the passionate pleas that were made; but, you know, the
people then had time to get to their members and put this forward. Right now in
this Province, most people, as I said, do not even know this is happening, do
not even know that this is happening.
There is nothing else in this bill. It is not here about the Newfoundland
Liquor Commission being short of funds. It is not about that. It is only to
allow liquor stores and liquor agency stores to sell wine and spirits on all
days other than statutory holidays set out in the Shops' Closing Act.
Currently, it prohibits the sale of wine and spirits by liquor stores and liquor
agency stores on Sundays.
Mr. Chairman, that is the way I would like to see it stay until at least we
had a clear message from the people of this Province of what their feelings
were, and not the feelings of forty-eight people, or even less - maybe one
person or two people - on the other side of the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Call the question, Mr. Chair.
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act." (Bill 61)
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Clause 1.
Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: Clause 1 is carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: The enacting clause is carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: The title is carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 61,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation
Act, carried without amendment?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: Bill 61 is carried.
On motion, Bill 61 carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask
leave to sit again.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit
again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed me to report Bill 61 carried, without amendment, and
ask leave to sit again.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that
the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him
to report that Bill 61 passed without amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
When shall the bill be read a third time?
MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time
presently, by leave. (Bill 61)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 4 on the Order Paper, to move, pursuant
to Standing Order 47, that the debate on Bill 61,
An Act To Amend The Liquor
Corporation Act, standing in the name of the Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board, be now read a third and final time without any amendments, in
accordance with Standing Order 47.
MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of Motion 4.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider certain matters pertaining to Bill 45.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I did move third reading - no, I did not. I am sorry.
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought we had already moved third reading.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize for the mix up, I only moved Motion 4. I do now move third
reading of Bill 61,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 61,
An Act
To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 61 be read a
third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 61)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,"
read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill
61)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider matters related to Bill 45.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for
the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 45.
Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House
to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Bill 45?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Pursuant to Motion 1 on the Order Paper, I move pursuant to Standing Order 47
that the debate on Bill 45,
An Act to Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And
All-Terrain Vehicles Act, standing in the name of my colleague, the hon.
Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, shall not be further adjourned
clause or clauses,
section or sections,
Schedule or Schedules,
preamble or
preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to debate in
Committee of the Whole House respecting Bill 45 shall be the first business of
the Committee at this moment.
CHAIR: The Committee has heard the motion as put forward by the
Government House Leader.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: Motion carried.
Bill 45,
An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles
Act.
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today to spend a few minutes to speak on this bill. I am doing it in
kind of, as some people would say, a heavy heart, Mr. Chairman, because my
colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile - we discussed it today. It was almost a
year ago today that I was served notice with papers to defend my winning of the
election in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, as we all
know now, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador said: Yes, you are the
elected member. You can represent the people of the Bay of Islands.
So, I am here today as a proud representative of the Bay of Islands but for
some reason, Mr. Chairman, I cannot continue this debate and I cannot express
the wishes and the concerns of the people that were expressed to me from the Bay
of Islands. It is a sad day, Mr. Chairman. It is a sad day when someone like
myself, who is very close to a lot of people in my area, the West Coast and the
Corner Brook area, and they expressed concerns to me to bring forward to the
government at the time and I cannot do it because the government, and in this
case the Premier, who is the leader, says: We do not want you to express any
concerns of the people. We have an agenda. We are going to go ahead with the
agenda and the agenda is going to be what we want to do. Who cares about what
people say? Who cares?
Mr. Chairman, the bill itself, in principle, is a good bill. I say to the
Minister of Tourism, it is a good bill. In principle the bill is a good bill but
there are a lot of problems with the bill, Mr. Chairman, a lot of problems with
the bill. I made several amendments to this bill, several amendments to protect
some people; people who traditionally use the outdoors in Newfoundland and
Labrador, Corner Brook, Bay of Islands, and they traditionally use some of these
trails. Some of these trails, Mr. Chairman, these people helped construct. They
helped construct these trails and now, all of a sudden, without any consultation
or any rights given to them, they are saying you have to pay to get on these
trails. Even though you helped build them, we want to do it.
The other issue that was brought up during this debate, Mr. Chairman, is the
Outdoor Bill of Rights. I spoke to Jim Morgan, probably about last Monday or
Tuesday. I spoke to Jim Morgan, and Jim Morgan was a former PC Cabinet Minister.
He said to me, in the meetings that they had and discussions they had with the
Premier is that there will be an Outdoor Bill of Rights with no fees for the
outdoors. Where is that Outdoor Bill of Rights? Where are the concerns that were
expressed then to the people, that the Premier said: no, we will not do that? We
will not shut down Newfoundland and Labrador outdoors to these people. We will
not do it. You have my commitment. But, now we know the commitment of the
Premier. We know the concerns that were expressed and at the time before and
during the election. He turns around and says: Okay, that was election time. Now
is the time we want something put through.
What the Minister of Transportation and Works said today, when he said parks
are an asset - inferring that the people who live on the roads that are not
plowed are not. It comes back to (inaudible) is that parks are an asset,
implying that the people who live on the roads are not. I think if you are
trying to consult with people in Newfoundland and Labrador, if you want the true
concerns of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, why are we invoking closure?
Why are we invoking closure on it? Or are the statements made by the minister
today a true reflection of the government? Is it a true reflection of the
government?
I know the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation said that he will hold
public consultations. I believe that minister. I sincerely believe that
minister. Now, if it was the Minister of Health and Community Services, the
former Minister of Education, who promised to me in a meeting, with six or seven
other people, that he would meet with the residents on the North Shore to
discuss the raising of the roof of the school, I would not believe it. I would
not believe it. Then the minister turns around, at the time, and goes out and
arranges a meeting because the Premier may be confronted. Then the minister
turns around, once the Premier gets out of town - the reason why he left town,
by the way, was to go up and make the $150,000 announcement for the exemption of
the Class 4 road up in Humber Valley. Once the Premier left town, the minister
then called out and said: no, the meeting is off.
If it was this minister who was saying that, yes, we will have public
consultations, I would not believe it. I would not believe it because I had
first-hand knowledge of how this government works, how they will make a
commitment, how they will stand up and say something, just for the moment with
no real intent.
AN HON. MEMBER: John Ottenheimer?
MR. JOYCE: It is the Minister of Health and Community Services, and I was
truly shocked when there was no meeting.
The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation says there will be
consultation, but I have a bit of a problem with that, just from the government
coming out and saying: We will have an Outdoor Bill of Rights. There is no
Outdoor Bill of Rights. All of a sudden now we are saying, that you cannot
express the concerns of the people, the traditional users, you cannot do that
because we are invoking closure, because we want this now. Forget about
everybody else and what they have to say, we want what we want, who cares what
people think or say. We want it and we want it now. I just find it strange, I
find it very strange, that this open and accountable government, all of a sudden
now are saying: We are open and accountable as long as you do what we want, when
we want it and how we want it. Mr. Chairperson, this is not the way to operate,
this is definitely not the way to operate.
Mr. Chairperson, just to tell you how telling this bill is, and how much
controversy surrounds this bill: Do you know that it was brought to my attention
by four members opposite that I should ask questions about this bill, about
traditional use on the trails? There were four members opposite who came to me
on four different occasions and said they have concerns with this bill. Do you
notice, Mr. Chairman, none of them are saying, name them? They are not saying
name them, are they, Mr. Chairman? They are not saying name them, because there
are people on the other side who do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand
up and say: We are rushing this bill, we should have public consultations. Not
one of them are saying: Premier, how about your commitment for the Outdoor Bill
of Rights that you made before and during the election? How about it? Yet, they
are quietly coming over to people like me, who happens to be the critic for
Tourism and Culture, and saying: You have to ask questions, you have to try and
make amendments to take care of the traditional users.
I am talking about traditional users, Mr. Chairperson, somebody who had a
cabin for forty or fifty years. They built the trail and all of a sudden now, to
get to their cabin - they get out of their truck and drive forty or fifty feet
on these groomed trails to get to their cabin - they have to pay $80 to drive
forty or fifty feet to get to their cabins. To me, that is a traditional use.
We made some amendments for that; thrown out! It is not what we wanted. No
way, it is not what we wanted, so we are not going to follow it. We had some
guidelines from Ontario about traditional users. We do not have to go out and
create a new template. We can put them down, table them and say: Here is the
template that we can use. It works in Ontario. As the minister said, it took
eleven years to develop, so why are we going to spend eleven years to develop it
if it is already done, if it meets our use?
One of the groups exempted in that is trappers. I know several trappers in
the Bay of Islands. They go along a trail, which they have been using all their
lives, they have crossed the trail once to get to their traplines - the trapline
actually runs across, and they have to cross it to get to the traplines and go
another four or five miles into the woods, on trails that they cut, and they
cannot be considered traditional users. Mr. Chairperson, they cannot be
classified as traditional users.
When you sit down and look at the merit of the bill for tourism potential in
Western Newfoundland, you have to look at the potential and the work that the
volunteers have done. You also have to weigh out the traditional users.
I know the dilemma the minister is in and a lot of the snowmobile
associations in this Province. I know the dilemma they are in. I still think we
should have had majority public consultation. The Minister of Transportation and
Works got up today and said, that park is an asset, implying that the people who
live on the road are not an asset. It makes someone like me think: Are the
traditional users the ones who are saying now, hold it government, you may be
making a mistake here. Will you reconsider? Is the government turning around and
saying to them, who cares? You are not an asset, so who cares what you have to
say?
Even though in principle it may be a good bill, there are too many unanswered
questions that must be asked and there must be answers given before everybody in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador buys into this bill. You cannot take a
portion of the Province and pit it again another portion of the Province, and
cannot take residents in one portion and pit them against the residents in the
same area, and pit them against each other. That is doing a complete disservice
to the whole snowmobile industry.
A lot of people I have spoken to, who have asked that I bring up amendments,
they stated they are not against mandatory trail stickers. They are not against
mandatory trail stickers. Before you can be for something, you have to know the
consequences, you have to know the parameters that you are dealing with, and you
have to know why it is being implemented. You have to know. You have to be
consulted. A lot of people I have spoken to said: Yes, okay, it is a great idea,
but why is it being pushed down our throats?
Mr. Chairman, we were told that we have lots of time to debate this bill. We
will go on as long as we like to debate this bill, but all of a sudden we are
getting closure. Once again, we have a bill that - and I have to say, and I say
it again publicly - I agree with in principle. The minister knows that I agree
with it in principle. Then, again, I have the residents who do call me. I have
the individuals, I have the groups that do call me and say: We need public
consultation. We need some type of input so that our rights as Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians who, in some cases, built the trails themselves - now are
saying that if you do not pay your $80, you cannot get on this trail. You cannot
get on this trail.
It is kind of a dilemma for me, because out on the West Coast I have people
for it and I have people against it. When you look into the bigger picture of
why a government is supposed to be so open and so accountable, why don't they
go out in Corner Brook and have public hearings? They had a full year. I ask the
Member for Humber Valley, why weren't there meetings in your area? I know the
member for Stephenville West - the Member for Port au Port, I know there is a
lot of controversy going on out in your area. Why didn't you ask for public
hearings in your area? Why didn't you ask for a public consultation? If you
are such an open and accountable government, I ask: Why didn't you ask for
public consultations in your area? Do you know why? Because a lot of them never
saw that bill until it was laid on the table in front of them. A lot of them
never saw that bill until they said: Here is the bill. The pages walked around
here and handed out the bill and said: Here is the bill.
We saw a prime example of that, where the Member for Topsail and the Member
for St. John's Centre, the other night, had an amendment put in front of them.
While they were sitting in their chairs, they had an amendment put in front of
them. I have to give two of them credit. I will give the Member for Topsail and
the Member for St. John's Centre credit. I have