Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 18 March 1999 (44th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLIV No. 2)
1999-03-18
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 18, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 2
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to, on behalf of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, pay tribute if I may to two sons of Newfoundland and Labrador
who have made a considerable contribution to this Province in their respective
professions. This is the first opportunity to do so.
I refer to the passing of Senator Bill Petten, who served our Province
with distinction in the second Chamber in the Parliament of Canada for a number of
decades, who was very well known for his wit, for his humour, for his humanity and for his
unyielding commitment to the best interest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I
counted Senator Bill Petten and his wife Bernice - and I know many in this Chamber would
agree with me in saying this - as a personal friend. He was particularly pleased and proud
of the role he played in the joint House of Commons Senate Committee on repatriating the
Constitution in 1982.
He played an important role, and I know met with many members on all
sides of the House during the course of the debate, discussion and subsequent
constitutional amendments on Term 17 and on the issue of education reform. I recall
particularly and personally the role he played in achieving what is undoubtedly a modern
day record, in seeing passage of an important and complex bill, Bill C-29, through the
Senate, the second Chamber, in one day. In fact, Bill C-29 passed the House of Commons in
one day and subsequently the Senate in a second day and that is probably, although I stand
to be corrected, a record. That was the bill that gave Canada the capacity to extend its
jurisdiction and take action beyond 200 miles. Bill Petten's personal relationships in the
Senate and his commitment to the issue of fisheries conservation were vital in seeing a
swift passage of that bill of such important interest to Canada, and of such important
interest to Newfoundland and Labrador.
I know that all members join me in extending to his family and to his
many friends our condolences at this time, but also our great appreciation and celebration
of a tremendous contribution to our Province.
I would like as well today, and I think it is appropriate, to
acknowledge the life, the work and the contribution and the passing of Michael Harrington,
who was a politician for a short period of time, a person who was engaged in the public
policy process and made a significant contribution during his time in that process. He was
a noted writer, a journalist, somebody who shaped and gave a degree of integrity to
journalism in this Province in a very substantial way by his contribution, for many years,
in a variety of roles at the Telegram . Mr. Harrington enjoys, I think, the
distinction, with Senator Petten, of being understated, of being a quiet man, but a very
deep individual and one whose commitment to his Province and country could not possibly be
questioned by anybody.
Both these gentleman have made a substantial contribution to our
Province and I think it is fitting that a message be sent forth, perhaps in your name, Mr.
Speaker, from this Legislature to their respective families acknowledging their passing
and, of course, celebrating the great contribution they have made to this society in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is no need, certainly, to revisit the lives the Premier has just
indicated, Senator Petten and certainly Michael Harrington. We wish to be associated with
those comments and to acknowledge publicly the contribution those two individuals have
made to sustaining our way of life, standing up for the cultural identity that is unique
in this country, and for providing a level of service that was beyond expectations.
On our behalf as the Official Opposition, and as the PC Party, we would
kindly ask the Speaker to forward that letter and the condolences on behalf of all of us
in the Chamber to the families.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition
in recognizing the distinguished lives and sad deaths of both these important
Newfoundlanders.
Senator Petten made a significant contribution to the Parliament of
Canada. While we might have our own opinions about the institution, certainly Senator
Petten was a very fine example of a person whose ability allowed the interests of this
Province to be served well in the Upper House. He was a man - anyone who knew him - of
great charm and personal warmth, well liked by everyone and not a partisan. One who
recognized that everybody had a contribution to make to the life of our Province. I'm
sorry to hear of his passing.
Michael Harrington was - many will know - a member of the National
Convention, which prior to Confederation considered the situation in this Province. He was
for a brief period, as the Premier has mentioned, a politician, but his real contribution
to the Province over time was that as a former of public opinion through the pages of the Telegram
as a writer, as editor-in-chief for many years, and as the writer, in latter years, of
something called "Offbeat History" which wove together many stories about our
history and our people. With the passing of both these individuals, it is a sad day for
this Province and I would like to joy in requesting you to send our condolences to the
families of Senator Petten and Michael Harrington, and our regret at their passing.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in recent years the Province has developed
first-class sporting venues in which to host local, national and international sporting
events. Just a few short weeks ago, the eyes of all Canadians were on Western Newfoundland
as we hosted the Canada Winter Games - the country's premiere sporting event.
The Host Society, under the direction of Mr. Wayne Trask, did a
magnificent job in preparing the region for these games. The feedback that I received, and
others received, while attending the various venues during the games was nothing short of
outstanding; from the meals served at the athletes village to the superb facilities in
which the athletes competed, like the Canada Games Centre.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make reference to the athletes who
were true ambassadors for our Province throughout these Games. They represented the
Province with pride and, in fact, won the Jack Pelech Award which recognizes the province
or territory whose athletes, coaches, managers and mission staff best combine competitive
performances, good sportsmanship and the spirit of fair play, cooperation and friendship.
Our athletes combined the true meaning of competition with record breaking results,
winning nineteen medals, the most ever won by Team Newfoundland and Labrador at any Canada
Games.
To continue to build on the reputation that the West Coast has earned,
government will commit in its 1999/2000 budget: $150,000 for the World Cup Triathlon to be
held in Corner Brook later this year; a second instalment of $75,000, for a total of
$150,000 for the Commonwealth Judo Championships to be held in Stephenville in 2000; and
today I am announcing that the necessary funds to support the 2000 Labrador Winter Games
will also be available.
Mr. Speaker, the thousands of volunteers in this Province have also
shown that they have both the drive and ability to host first-class provincial, national
and international sporting events in this Province. The government is supporting our
people by providing the resources to host major sporting events which have tremendous
spinoff benefits for the Province. I wish all the event organizers well in their
endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: I would like to first of all thank the minister for
forwarding to me his Ministerial Statement before the House opened. I would certainly like
to echo the words of the minister in relation to what the Canada Winter Games did for this
Province, and indeed for the country as a whole. I think, when you look back and think of
names like Lee Churchill, and definitely Jed Blackmore, and what he did for the cultural
part of the games, indeed to send a message far and wide that Newfoundland is proud of its
past and is certainly confident in its future.
I would also like to say to the minister that I am very pleased to see
money being put forward for the World Cup. A couple of years ago we had another World Cup
in Corner Brook that brought many, many athletes from all around the world to see our
great Province and participate in a sport that has taken on a whole new meaning in
sporting circles - also, for the Judo Championship and indeed the 2000 Labrador Winter
Games.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: It is good to see the Province putting money, in a
positive sense, into the athletes and indeed to our many volunteers who give their time
and effort to these organizations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The mere knowledge that we are going to host the Canada Winter Games is
a source of pride for this Province. The execution of the Games, both in terms of its
organization, its demonstrations of our history and culture, and the great success of our
athletes, really put our beautiful West Coast of this Province on the map and gave us all
great pride. I want to congratulate everybody involved, particularly the 9,000 volunteers.
I appreciate that the minister has announced today the funding for the Labrador Winter
Games in the year 2000.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Labrador West campus of the College of the North Atlantic will be
home to a new Mining Technology Centre. The Mining Centre for Excellence, is expected to
be operational in September in Labrador City.
The centre will be positioned to meet current and emerging training
needs of industry through a modern facility which provides for well-designed mining
technology training programs, providing the essentials of modern mining techniques for
both new and experienced miners.
Support for this centre has been received from all significant
partners, including Human Resources and Development Canada, Industry Canada, ACOA, the
provincial Departments of Education, Human Resources and Employment, and Development and
Rural Renewal.
I must point out as well the significant contribution of the former
Member of the House of Assembly for Labrador West, Mr. Perry Canning -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: - and my colleague, the hon. Ernest McLean, Member for
Lake Melville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Their efforts accounted in no small means toward the
establishment of this centre. The proposal is being supported by the College of the North
Atlantic and industry by an in-kind contribution of approximately $500,000. The
Federal/Provincial Labour Market Agreement has allocated $631,204, and ACOA will
contribute $469,000.
The three iron ore mining companies in Labrador - The Iron Ore Company
of Canada, Wabush Mines and Voisey's Bay Nickel - will identify the kind of courses
required and work with The College of the North Atlantic to determine the curriculum.
Mr. Speaker, individuals trained at this centre will be qualified to
meet the emerging needs of the mining industry. This new Mining Centre of Excellence will
enhance social and economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the
minister's statement. I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy, be
it just a couple of minutes ago. It is good news, so I would assume probably the bad news
statements will come out a little later.
This initiative certainly is good news, and I would like to relay to
the minister that it is going in a good spot. Labrador West is losing some things these
days, I understand. I can support it because it is an initiative that is going to take
care of a very pressing need, and that is for the mining industry, to provide much
necessary training. The partnership with industry, with the federal government, is
certainly a good initiative.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. My apologies.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HEDDERSON: Again, it is a good initiative, one that we can
support, but it is just a small initiative and we would like to make sure that we see much
more of this.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: I was told that there would be one time in your life
that you will receive applause from everybody in the House. I guess this is my turn.
We are pretty pleased to see the centre being established in Labrador
West, Mr. Speaker. It has been talked about for many years by those of us who lived in
Labrador West and it is much needed, particularly with the changing technology and
processing methods that are taking place in the mining industry. It is needed now more
than ever before in our past, where the priority now is on top quality production.
I would also like to acknowledge -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: - the work that the former member did, Perry Canning,
and the hon. Ernie McLean, for the work that they put into this, because I know it was
near and dear to their hearts. It was a project they were proud of.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: So again, I welcome the opportunity to look forward to
this centre opening and providing a service. Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to make a short statement. Cabinet is in the process of
finalizing decisions on the Budget now and will complete those over the weekend.
Therefore, I am pleased to announce that Budget Day will be moved forward to this coming
Monday from Thursday next.
We have also re-entered negotiations with the nurses' union and both
sides have agreed to a media blackout. Therefore, we will not be discussing publicly
anything to do with those negotiations, and secondly, any matters arising from those
negotiations, including any potential settlement, will not be reflected in the Budget.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure that moving the Budget from Thursday back to Monday is a
parliamentary and administrative function as well as for any other reasons you might have.
It has come so soon after those lengthy pre-Budget consultations that we all heard of.
On the negotiations, I am sure this will give the nurses time to bring
the expectations -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. H. HODDER: - and the promises of the Premier to a set of
principles that they can all live with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the moving of the Budget up to
Monday will be a part of the announcement that government is making provision for fair,
full negotiations with the nurses, and also for recognition and acknowledgement of the
Royal Newfoundland Constabulary award.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On February 4, five days before the election, the Premier returned from
Ottawa, as we all know, on social union talks to tell nurses, and indeed all people of
this Province, that they now have the money. He could not announce how much, but on an
open line program he now had significant money that would improve the Province's health
care system. Less than two weeks later the Premier, his Minister of Finance and the
Minister of Health called the federal budget laughable, called it insensitive, and that in
fact we would end up with only an additional $9 million. It was not even mentioned, saying
that it came as a complete surprise, saying the government was blindsided by the changes
that left the Province with, as I said, a net gain of only $9 million.
The question is, Premier: Were you really misled by the Prime Minister
of Canada and other premiers in this country, or was it you who did the misleading when
you assured the voting public that everything would be fine when you knew that it would
not be?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the only person who made misleading
fiscal statements during this campaign is the leader of the party that promised -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: - a $900 million tax break for the people of this
Province that cannot be afforded.
Mr. Speaker, the public facts surrounding the way in which the CHST has
been announced and the change of formula are very well known. If the Leader of the
Opposition is interested, as I hope he is, in the stability, in the future of health care
in the Province, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he pay close
attention to Monday's Budget. Because government will demonstrate its commitment to health
care by making sure that our first commitment, from a fiscal point of view, is to
sustaining in a proper fashion quality health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the biggest event that took place during
the Winter Games was not even reported, and it was the TKO that the Prime Minister scored
on this Premier -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: - when he took him - as we would like to say - to the
woodshed to remind him of a few things, which I will remind him of right now, Mr. Speaker!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: The National Post reported on February 26,
what happened in Corner Brook. The Prime Minister indicated federally, in a federal news
conference, and publicly, not only to the people in this Province but to the people of
Canada, that this Premier did know what was coming down the track, that it was not
blindsided, that he knew full well what money was coming down from transfer payments in
Ottawa. The question is: Isn't it true, Premier, that you knew a long time ago about the
federal Liberal plan to shift transfers to a per capita funding system, to the detriment
of Newfoundland and Labrador? You not only said and did nothing to change it, but you
actually supported it. Aren't those the facts, Premier, as they are?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: The TKO was scored on February 9 and the hon. Leader
of the Opposition is still seeing stars.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: You know, Mr. Speaker, the last time somebody got in
the ring to swing for the Conservative Party and scored a result of about 39 per cent, the
Leader of the Opposition was calling for their ouster, and doing so within days of the
election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: I suppose that getting another 1 per cent changes
the water on the beans; I am not sure.
AN HON. MEMBER: Temporarily.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specific question
that the Leader of the Opposition asked, that has already been answered. The answer is
that no notice was given to anybody, anywhere, of the change in the formula.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me get it straight. The Prime
Minister of the country indicated...
Let me ask this question: In the First Ministers' Conference leading up
to Christmas, no discussion on it. About three or four days before the election call, the
Deputy Ministers of Finance around the country meet in Ottawa; they did not discuss it.
The Primer Minister of the country publicly says that all Premiers knew about it, and the
Premier stands today and says nobody had any notice.
Premier, which is it? Did you know or didn't you know? If you knew, why
didn't you do anything about it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that, with the break
between the last session and this session, the Leader of the Opposition was going to get
better at asking these questions. Obviously, he has stuck with the same old script.
The fact of the matter is, this was not raised at the First Ministers'
Conference. What the Prime Minister said is that there has been a discussion, going back
over a year or two, on the question of equalization at the level of Finance Ministers -
the Minister of Finance can quite happily stand and respond - and with officials. That
discussion has been ongoing for a long time. We have been trying to achieve things like a
floor in the loss of equalization based on population loss. That has been our major
objective. Other jurisdictions have been asking for other kinds of changes.
We have been concerned about equalization loss, for example, that will
result from increased royalties from oil, and increased royalties from mineral products
like nickel, and these have all been discussed; but, no, there was no notice given, not to
the minister, not to premiers, and not to officials - specifically not to the Deputy
Minister of Finance who, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, he might call as
a witness before the appropriate committee of the House and ask for testimony. I am sure
the deputy minister, who is an honourable civil servant, will tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth.
The difference between the deputy minister and the Leader of the
Opposition is that he will not fabricate things in order to try and generate headlines.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this government is fast becoming known
as a government that says one thing and does another. On April 30, and again on May 6, we
raised it in this House and warned this government of what was coming down the track, when
we warned the Premier a year ago to open his eyes, to read the federal proposal in The
Ottawa Citizen that was laid out for all to see, to stand up and fight these proposals
vigorously, to vigorously stand up and fight for this Province. Why did the Premier and
his government simply dismiss that information, fall back to sleep, and play right into
the hands of those richer provinces who have made significant gains off the backs of the
people in this Province?
Premier, we warned you. You did nothing about it. Why didn't you stand
up and fight for the people of this Province who are demanding a quality health care
education system?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is an amusing question coming from
the member, given that Newfoundland and Labrador, at the meeting of Atlantic Premiers,
indeed put forward a position and had endorsed a position by all of the Atlantic Premiers
supporting equalization being continued on the basis of the existing formula and not a
move to equal per cap, equalization based on per capita.
The fact of the matter is, it was the Conservative Government of
Ontario and the Conservation Government of Alberta which have consistently sought this
change. If the Leader of the Opposition believes he is as effective as he thinks he might
be with his colleagues, he might make a phone call to a few of his colleagues who have
been pursuing this course of action and see whether or not they agree with his view.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is, the change has occurred. It is not the
course of action that any of the Atlantic Provinces would have preferred. We certainly
know it is not the course of action that the Province of Quebec prefers as well, but we
have to get on with life.
We have said that the commitments we have made to the health care
system are going to be sustained. We have said that all of those things we indicated we
will do will be done, and more besides.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: Be here
Monday for a full accounting of how the taxpayers' dollars are going to be spent.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: What a piece of work! The fact of the matter is that,
as a federal member representing this Province, he stood in the House of Commons and
supported such a change, Premier. That is the fact of the matter. The fact of the matter
is that accountability in this House has to be maintained and answered. You cannot speak
from both sides of your mouth.
I have been through the Liberal Red Book from top to bottom. Would you
kindly tell me on what page in this book you promised to put the political interests of
the Prime Minister of Canada ahead of the interests of the people of this Province? Could
you reference that, please?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as we saw during the debate, I had been
through the Tory Blue Book, obviously, in greater detail than the Leader of the
Opposition. I am glad he has finally gotten around to reading our book.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Another issue needs to be discussed: During the election, saying one
thing, wooing voters, doing another. The Premier wrote a letter, met with the Pensioners
Association - NAPE - indicating that now this government truly understands the issues
facing pensioners.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, that was not what was said today, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his
question.
MR. E. BYRNE: The question is this: Why don't we do the honourable
thing today? Why don't we guarantee pensioners in this Province an increase that was
exactly what was negotiated with NAPE, and peg it to it from here on in, that whenever
negotiated increases are made, they automatically get them? Let us make a commitment
today, Premier. Let this House do it right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can play
today, if he wants, to seek to have the affirmation of the gallery, if that is what he
wants. The reality is that what he just said is false. I would hope that the Leader of the
Opposition is unaware that what he just said is false. I hope we can begin this session by
speaking from a basis of fact.
The Leader of the Opposition just said that I met with the association.
I did not meet with the association.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER TOBIN: Let us put the facts down. There was a request that
came from NAPE, Mr. Austin Deir, directly to the negotiator at Treasury Board - not to me,
not to the Liberal Party, and not to anybody on this bench - over a period of several
weeks, asking whether or not government would be willing to sit and meet with NAPE on the
issue of indexing and on the issue of pensioners after the election. What I confirmed was
that yes, we would be willing to do so. I think that went out just a few days before the
election. I do not think it impacted the election one way or another. Quite frankly, it
was a letter sent in response to a request by NAPE and communicated through Treasury
Board.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, nobody is trying to play to the gallery.
Two years ago, we took a position with respect to public service pensioners. We took it
again this fall. We thought so much about it we outlined it clearly in our election policy
book.
The question today is: Will you as Premier, on behalf of the
government, make a commitment to the public service pensioners, many of whom are living
below the poverty line because they have had no increase, their pensions are not indexed?
Surely, can we make a commitment? Can you make a commitment - if you do, we will support
it - that the increase negotiated with the bargaining agent, NAPE, will be passed directly
on to the public service pensioners? Yes or no?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the government intends, as it committed
itself to do, to address in the Budget on Monday the issue of providing some additional
assistance to the lowest paid, to the poorest of the poor, amongst our senior citizens in
this Province.
I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, and to all members of
this House, that we have to remember that there are many pensioners in this Province who
have not pubic pensions but private pensions who are also poor. There are tens of
thousands of senior citizens in this Province who have no pension at all, public or
private.
What we have committed as a government to do, recognizing that the
dollars that we draw from are public dollars - they belong to everybody. They belong to
people who are former public servants, they belong to people who work in the private
sector, they belong to people who have no pension, a public or a private one, but who are
poor nevertheless. That if we are going to reach out and try and give a measure of
assistance to senior citizens above the age of sixty-five who are poor, we have to help
them if they are poor, whether they are public or whether they are private or whether they
have no pension at all. What is wrong with that kind of an approach to fairness?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Finance. On the night of the
federal Budget, February 16, and the morning after, the Minister of Finance made it
crystal clear to the media, and his words were that he was very disappointed with the
Budget, it was laughable, it was an insensitive document, that it made him angry, that it
meant taking money from the rich provinces and giving it to the poor. These are pretty
tough words from a finance minister. Yet, just days later our horse-whipped Premier was in
Corner Brook. He was standing next to the Prime Minister, and he said the issue is closed
as far as Newfoundland and Labrador is concerned.
I ask the Minister of Finance, is he joining the Premier in this
charade of retracting the harsh things he said about the federal Budget, or is he going to
stand by the things he said there on February 16 and February 17? Which is it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister's office has
already spoken to the silly report which the Opposition critic now wants to try and cite
about our very good meeting that we had in Corner Brook. All I can say to the finance
critic, and what I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, both of whom forecast that
the Province would have a $200 million deficit this year - that is what you forecast
repeatedly, and we can pull you out the citations -, that you have been off by at least
several hundred million dollars.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford
Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Premier we are quoting the words of his Minister of
Finance, and we assume that he is a knowledgable person. The words that I used are indeed
the words of the minister. I say to the Minister of Finance that either the federal Budget
is going to hurt Newfoundland and Labrador, as the Premier and the minister said on
February 16 or February 17, or it is not going to hurt us. You cannot have it both ways.
I remind the minister of what is happening in British Columbia, where
government is in big trouble because of serious repercussions about misleading the people
about the impact of a budget. I ask again: which of these two scenarios is correct? Is the
federal Budget going to hurt Newfoundland and Labrador with all its impact, or is it going
to be helpful to Newfoundland and Labrador? What is the impact short term and long term?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the time, what happened with
the CHST was that there was a change in policy that was not known to the government. The
distribution formula for the amount of money that Ottawa sends to the provinces to help
with health care education and social services was changed. It was a change that we had
opposed and the federal government saw fit to implement it without notice to the Province.
All the things I said I stand by, as did my colleague the Minister of
Health. Now, having said that, there were items in the federal Budget that were
beneficial. The equalization payments are up substantially, so on balance the Province
will receive more money. The hon. member can characterize that as helping or hurting the
Province. In my view, receiving more money is helpful. Having said that, we would have
preferred the CHST not to be changed.
As regards an ongoing dialogue, that is an argument we have lost with
the federal government. We have many more matters to deal with them on and we intend to be
constructive in our relationship. As the Premier said at the time, there comes a point
when you have made your point, you win or lose an argument, and then you move on to
discuss the relevant issues of the day. We do not have the luxury afforded to the
Opposition to be negative all the time, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford
Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Finance knows that the change from a needs basis to a
per capita structure was in the Liberal policy booklet that was federally brought out in
1993. He knows that. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this
change will be extremely hard on Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the minister again, can
he please explain why he considers the matter closed, as the Premier said, when it will
mean in the long term potentially deeper health cuts, deeper education cuts, and more
suffering for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to lobby the federal
government to make changes that are beneficial to the Province. What the hon. member is
losing sight of is that there was more money for the Province, and my point was that it is
not as much as it should have been and that we would have liked: as the hon. member knows,
a net of $17 million on CHST, rather than $35 million that we had been led to believe we
would receive. As in any case with any government or any parties, the dialogue will
continue. As far as we can see the federal government has made the change and it is
unlikely that will be changed back, but there are other matters to pursue that we expect
will be productive.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community
Services. I might add the Premier and the Minister of Finance were not the only ones to
trash the federal Budget, just four weeks ago. The Minister of Health and Community
Services stated bluntly to the media, and I quote, that: the Province is going to take a
very hard hit, end of quote, because of the federal Budget. Now she said the federal
Budget has created a two-tiered health care system and that is not good enough.
I want to ask the minister responsible for the health of people in this
Province this question. If it is not good enough, then do you agree with the Premier that
the issue with the federal Budget is a closed one for this government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with both the Premier and my colleague the Minister of Finance
in that we will continue to lobby the federal government to address the issue of CHST
changes and continue to bring forward our issues to those colleagues.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The shift to a per capita system for transfer allocations, I say to the
minister, is a very frightening one for this Province. Nowhere else is it more evident
than in the Department of Health and Community Services.
Is the minister aware of the advisory report on a strategic social plan
that was drafted by Penny Rowe and presented to this government a couple of years ago? Is
she aware that this document concludes that there is a grave threat to our Province
because young people are disappearing and leaving no one here to provide the basic
revenues that are needed to care for an ever-increasing number of our senior people? I ask
the minister, does this shift to per capita transfers threaten Newfoundland and Labrador?
Or, I ask the minister, is it closed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As we have all pointed out earlier this afternoon in Question Period,
we will continue to lobby to have the restored formula put back for CHST funding, because
naturally we would prefer to have the older formula instead of just a per capita based
formula. Because obviously out-migration does have an impact, and that is an obvious
statement. We will continue to make our case. We will continue to try to lobby the federal
government to restore the existing formula, but we have to work with what we have, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So she agrees with the Premier on my first question, but now she is
disagreeing with the Premier on the second question, that it is not closed. The Premier
said it was closed and you are saying that it is not closed.
Minister, over the past few weeks I've received calls from people all
over this Province with horror stories about waiting lists, cancelled procedures, and
patients sitting on chairs in emergency departments over night for hours on end. No one
thought things would get worse, but things have, Minister. Under your direction things
have got worse in this Province in health care.
Minister, my question to you is: why, except for the few hours
immediately after the federal Budget, have you been silent about federal budgetary changes
that are eroding health care in our Province and having a significant effect on the health
of our people? Even The Telegram today asks: Where is our minister?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his
question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, why are you, of all ministers,
participating in the Premier's charade that the Prime Minister can do no wrong and that
the federal Budget is closed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier made it very
clear that the end result was more money for our Province as a result of the federal
Budget. We will also repeat again to you that I think you need to listen very closely on
Monday to the provincial Budget to see our commitment to health care, and then you will
see where our priorities lie.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is not what we were led to believe. The change of only $9 million
extra is less than nine-tenths of 1 per cent of the funding that is now spent in health
care out of this provincial Budget. I ask the minister, do you stand by your statement
that was made on February 16 and again on February 17 that the federal Budget will hit
Newfoundland and Labrador very hard, or are you now saying that you do not know what you
are talking about? I say to the minister, if you do not know what you are talking about
then -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: - I ask the minister, how can you expect anyone to
believe that you know what you are talking about now?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) the rhetorical question, here we go
again, Mr. Speaker.
I will say again, Mr. Speaker, that you are making an assumption, that
the $9 million is what there is to put in health care. You cannot second guess and you
cannot assume what will or will not be in the Budget. You are making an assumption about
what will be put in the Budget on Monday and I think you have to listen. We have been very
clear on our position about CHST and about the overall bottom line on the federal budget.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question too is to the Minister of Health and Community Services.
Minister, your leader, the Premier, made a pilgrimage to Ottawa during the provincial
election and returned with much fanfare and the big announcement that he now had the money
in his back pocket to improve the Province's health care system. Since the election the
real truth is now evident and the amount of money made available is certainly far less
than what is needed.
I ask the minister if she will be seriously looking at directing any
new monies towards operating level III chronic care beds in this Province, and if Golden
Heights Manor in Bonavista is on her list for consideration?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I invite the member to come to the House on Monday
to hear the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista
South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, $1.4 million of taxpayers' money was spent to refurbish part
of the Golden Heights Manor complex and created ten extra beds. Surely studies were done
to show that the addition was needed at that time, and statistics show that a need
presently exists to have those beds opened and occupied. Will the minister commit here
today to have those beds open to reflect the need that exists today in this rural area?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will commit to you and
to the people of Bonavista what we have been committing to do, and that is we will look at
the whole system as it relates to the needs based on the home support system, based on the
level of care. We will make the decision based on what is in the best interest of that
system and the services we have to provide. That is how we will make our decisions on
those beds.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista
South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I make the plea to you today that there
are ten beds, as you well know, existing in the Golden Heights Manor that are lying there
now vacant. My plea to you is to look at the need and if one bed is needed or if two beds
are needed or if ten beds are needed, if you will look positively at opening up the number
of beds that are needed to reflect the need in the area. I also understand that the union
membership have agreed that they will work with you in making sure that their levels of
work will reflect only the need that is being brought forward by one or two beds being
opened if the need arises.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If that need arises that will be the discussion that we will have with
the board. They will make the appropriate decision in consultation with the people in the
area and with my department, but it is not a decision that will be made here. It will be a
decision that is made when we have the right environment to open those beds, if in fact
they do require to be opened at all.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for
the Province. We have, in the recent past, witnessed some disturbing events at our youth
centre in Whitbourne. There have been some allegations of abuse over the recent past. We
have had a history of escapes, certainly in particular in the past number of weeks, and of
course we have had a very tragic suicide.
My question directly to the Minister of Justice is simply: What is the
basis, or what rationale can the minister possibly have when he states that there is no
need for a formal public inquiry at this time?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A public inquiry is ordered when there is no other process available
for matters of a public nature to be investigated. In each of the three matters that the
hon. member mentions, there are appropriate mechanisms to inquire into and supply to
government and the public the information necessary to make appropriate decisions.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's
East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would ask the minister, would he be more specific? The people of this
Province are saying, loudly and clearly, there is now a need for such a public review and
public inquiry. What are the examples, when the minister states there are other avenues,
other mechanisms? Please be more specific, Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
MR. DICKS: I am disappointed with the hon. member. He is a lawyer;
he should know these.
First of all, with respect to the recent tragic deaths, there are four
levels of inquiry. The first is an internal inquiry which is carried out immediately. The
second is that there is a police investigation - in this case the RCMP - which determines
whether or not there are charges laid, or warranted, based on what occurred in their view.
Thirdly, there is the report of the medical examiner, a qualified physician, a forensic
pathologist, who is probably the most knowledgeable person, or one of the two most
knowledgeable people on the Island as to the events surrounding death. Fourthly, there is
a judicial inquiry. In fact, there is one ongoing that we may expand to include this, but
it is not proper for us to make that decision until we receive that information.
In the case of the alleged abuse, there is a civil process, that
statements of claim have been entered. That would be subject to trial in the civil
division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, should these people proceed. In addition,
there have been investigations; there have been some criminal charges which have been
heard in court in respect of one individual which form part of the complaint, not all of
it.
Let me say, finally, with respect to the escapes, if the hon. member
reads Dr. Linda Inkpen's report, he will find it helpful. What she speaks of there, on
pages 30 and 31, is what is called acceptable risks.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I can assure the public, if they want to
create an institution that no inmate will escape from, we can build it. It is very simple.
You build a fifty-foot perimeter, you put razor wire on the top, you have guard dogs, you
have police with machine guns; and we can design it so that light does not escape, let
alone people.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: But, ask yourself the second question. Is that the
environment we want to create in which we are going to place offenders who are that young?
The governing principle with young offenders is something called rehabilitation. You can
create it, and you can make hardened criminals that will never surface out of this black
hole; but I say to the hon. member that in designing programs in institutions that care
for young offenders -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to finish up quickly.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will finish.
- there is the notion of acceptable risk. If we are going to develop a
situation in which young people will earn the trust and learn to accept personal
responsibility, some will abuse it and some will escape. That is, in Dr. Inkpen's review,
in mine as well, and those who work in our institutions, an acceptable risk if we are
going to have the prospect of rehabilitation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, today, introduce the following Private Member's Resolution:
adequate to control the population of harp seals on the coasts of Newfoundland and
Labrador has allowed the harp seal population to expand, unchecked, to levels that further
threaten the depleted groundfish stocks on which numerous communities and people have
traditionally depended; and
management jurisdiction for seals with respect to the setting of quotas; and
measures to reduce and properly control the harp seal population; and
in discharging its fisheries management responsibilities, that slowness to act can have
disastrous consequences; and
WHEREAS it is our responsibility, as the elected representatives of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to ensure that the government and people of Canada
are made properly aware of the details and urgency of this matter;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon the Government
of Canada to take immediate measures that will be effective in properly reducing and
controlling the harp seal population along our coasts;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an all-party Committee of the House of
Assembly be struck to impress upon the federal Minister of Fisheries and the Government of
Canada the urgency of addressing the seal overpopulation crisis.
Thank you.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some hon. citizens of
our Province who were present in the lobby earlier this afternoon. The petition reads as
follows:
To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly showeth;
WHEREAS provincial government retirees have not received an increase to
their pension benefits in ten years; and
WHEREAS pension benefits received by government retirees in this
Province have not been indexed to protect them against inflation; and
WHEREAS the government of this Province has made a commitment to give
serious consideration to increasing benefits in indexing pensions;
THEREFORE WE, the undersigned, call upon the government to provide a
flat increase for provincial government retirees receiving the smallest pensions, a
retroactive 7 per cent increase over thirty-nine months to all provincial government
employees, and indexing of provincial government retirees' pensions to compensate for the
effects of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, we know that today the members of the general public of
this Province gathered from all parts of the Province to come to this hon. House - it is
their House, it is their Province - and they wanted to tell the government that they are
not very happy with the way in which the government has handled the retirees' public
service pension plan.
A the Member for Bonavista South is saying to me here, to the aside,
they should not have to do that. It should be their right that they should be looked
after. They are the people who worked for the employer. If you compare what is happening
in the other Atlantic Provinces to what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, the
retirees of this Province come off a distant fourth. We say that this government should be
looking after the people who worked for it, the same way that Bowaters or Kruger or some
other large national company should have plans in place to look after their retirees as
well.
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that there are people in this Province who
are retired, who need to have special care. We acknowledge that. Some people worked for
employers who were insensitive, uncaring, and the governments over the years did not make
regulations to assure that all of the people of this Province would have a decent income
upon their retirement. However, in saying that, we say to the government, that is an
initiative that we can support; however, Mr. Speaker -
[Disturbance in the gallery.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask that the member be removed from the gallery.
The Chair will recess the House until the galleries are cleared.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley has two minutes left.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to bring to the attention of the House again the living
conditions of the Public Service retirees in this Province. About 900 of our retired
public servants live on pensions that are less than $3,600 annually. That amounts to less
than $300 per month. A further 2,184 of them live on less than $400 per pay period. That
is less than $9,000 a year. The average public service pension is around $11,000 annually,
or less than $1,000 a month.
We are saying to this government, we are saying to this Province, and
we have said to this Province through our public statements - as part of the PC Party, it
is in our election platform, it is in our policy documents - that we believe there should
be a way in which retired public servants are looked after by their former employer,
namely the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the issue of pensions was not put on the
collective bargaining table because it was not allowed to be there. We want to say to the
government that something needs to be done. There are commitments that have been made.
There are issues that need to be addressed. While the initiatives that are rumoured to be
in the Budget coming next Monday may address some of those issues, and some people who do
not receive public service pensions - and we agree with that -, in advance we are saying
anything you can do for the poorest of the poor people, that is good, but that does not
eliminate the responsibility that you have to your former employees.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are saying to the government today -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: - listen to your retired public servants. They
deserve your support, they deserve better. They gave you their service. Now they need your
help.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today for a couple of minutes and support the
petition as presented by my colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley. This is a petition
which is certainly no stranger in this particular Chamber. This particular petition and
the thrust of this petition has been presented on numerous occasions. It is unfortunate,
and it is indeed sad, that on day one of the opening of this session of the House of
Assembly the thrust of this petition must be brought and presented once again.
What it shows is there is a complete lack of understanding by members
opposite as to the plight of so many thousands of our senior, retired, public service
pensioners. Essentially, members opposite are saying: We could not care less. That is why
it is necessary for thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who find themselves in
this situation to once again sign their names in desperation, and present a petition to
the members of this Chamber. It is indeed a sad day, and it is the first day of the
opening of this session and here we are once again, presenting the very unfortunate and
sad situation of so many thousands of our public service pensioners.
As my hon. colleague indicated, we are talking approximately 11,000 or
12,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have devoted and dedicated their lives to the
public service of this Province.
Regardless of political parties, these people have dedicated their
lives and have dedicated their service to the public of this Province. All they are asking
for at this time is some recognition by the powers that be, by the government of this
Province, to listen to their concerns and to do something to rectify what is for so many
thousands of our public service pensioners a very difficult situation.
That is why they have signed their names once again. That is why these
petitions are being presented on day one of this session. They need the ear, they are
asking for attention. They are asking for this government to finally, and once and for
all, listen. Unfortunately, that has not been done. We are told that there may be some
redress in Monday's Budget. We will wait and see. However, pensioners are very cautious,
they are very concerned, and they are very skeptical. That is right, I say to my colleague
the Member for Lewisporte. They have good reason to be very skeptical.
We will wait and see, but it is indeed a sad reflection of what is
happening in our Province when again our retired public service pensioners must come to
the floor of this particular Chamber and seek redress in this fashion.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals
who are concerned with the issue of public service pensioners. They state in their
petition that the public provincial government retirees have not received an increase to
their pension benefits in ten years, and that pension benefits received by government
retirees in this Province have not been indexed to protect them against inflation; and
whereas the government of this Province has made a commitment to give serious
consideration to both increasing benefits and indexing pensions, the undersigned are
calling upon the government for a flat increase for government retirees receiving the
smallest pensions, a retroactive 7 per cent over thirty-nine months to all provincial
government employees, and indexing a provincial government retirees pension to compensate
for the effective inflation.
Mr. Speaker, the way in which the former employees of this government
are being treated by this government, by this Ministry, is nothing short of disgraceful. I
do not support speaking from the gallery in this House, but we can see the level of
frustration that this organization, that these individuals, have with a government who
misled them during the election campaign that they were going to fix this matter, that led
them to believe that government was serious about doing something about the problem that
presented itself.
What do we have? We have a hint that in Monday's Budget we are not
going to have anything for former public servants. What we are going to have is some
seniors' benefit for those over sixty-five by way of a tax credit, a seniors' over
sixty-five tax credit.
Now we know that many of the people who are protesting this, many of
the public servants pensioners, aren't even anywhere near sixty-five, yet they are reliant
solely upon a public service pension; in many cases, not a full pension but only a partial
pension because their years of service did not allow them to receive a full pension,
because they were made redundant or laid off or in other ways were not able to have their
proper years.
We are dealing, as a former speaker said, with over 900 of the public
service pensioners who have less than $300 a month. What is this government's answer to
them? The government's answer to them is not what they led them to believe during the
election campaign. Not what they led them to believe in order to achieve a result that
would see them not having protests during the election campaign.
What government is now saying to them is that the solution for you is
to go to the social services office, to go to the Minister of Human Resources and
Employment and seek some assistance from the public person, instead of getting the
recognition that this government has an obligation to give them. What we have had happen
in this Province is that previous governments failed to invest the contributions from
employees, and failed to make their own contributions. Those two contributions together
with their investment would have provided sufficient funding to ensure that this would not
be happening to public service pensioners.
The government should acknowledge that a solution to this problem does
not have to come immediately from the Budget, from the bottom line of this year. The
pension fund is in better shape than it was supposed to be by now, and the pension fund
and government's contribution to it should be adequate to look after the needs of these
people.
A solution has to be found, a solution that recognizes government's
obligation to its own former employees. That is what has to happen, not a program for
those over sixty-five. That is a different group of people than the public service
pensioners who had a regular increase and a legitimate expectation that they would get a
regular increase as public sector wages rose.
This government has failed their commitment and they are failing these
people. I think that these protests will continue. These are legitimate protests. They
recognize that government has failed them. I think, as one of the leaders has said, that
the Premier put his hand on his shoulder and led him to believe that they would be treated
fairly by this government. We have yet to see that, and I call on government now to treat
these individuals fairly and give them the increase that they deserve.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think everybody in this Province, when they look at the situation
that the retired government employees are facing, agree that it is outrageous and
deplorable. One person said that a measure of a just society is how they treat retirees,
seniors, and the less fortunate. I think if we use those standards in this Province to
look at how we treat people in those categories, we certainly would not be far up the yard
stick.
Government misuse of public pension money over the years is largely the
cause of not being able to address their concerns now. It is ironic that this government,
and the federal government and other jurisdictions, have legislation in place making sure
that what happens to their own employees cannot happen to employees in the private sector.
It is good for people in the private sector for government to have legislation preventing
this; yet, at the same time, they do not have it to protect their own employees.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to make a few comments with respect to both petitions
that were just presented with respect to increases to public service pensioners, just for
matters of context and for some of those who might misunderstand what they see happening
in the Legislature today.
This is not the first time that this issue has been debated on the
floor of this Legislature. As a matter of fact, petitions were presented days and days on
end before the Legislature recessed for Christmas. This issue has been in the domain of
this Legislature for months leading up to today.
I can understand why some members of the general public coming to our
galleries might think that people are treating the matter lightly or not listening because
they are not listening to a particular speaker on a particular day. Everyone in this
Legislature has heard this issue debated at length repeatedly in this Legislature.
It was also an issue that was front and centre in the public realm in
the Province during the last provincial election campaign. The parties staked out certain
positions. The position of the Opposition, which are sitting here in Opposition, is that
they would grant increases as they had done when they were the government for seventeen
years.
The recommendation that was made, just for the record, in an
independent study of the pension plans, was that whoever the government was to be in 1989,
because it was a report done for the Conservative government, that the first thing they
should stop doing - because the pension plans were going into serious deficit - was to
give unfunded increases out of the pension plans that were not paid for. That was a study
done by the Progressive Conservative government of the day, of which the now Member for
Lewisporte was a member, became the leader, became the Premier, had the study. Now, with
that kind of a recommendation being the first recommendation, that nobody was going to do
any pensioner a favour by giving them an increase that was not provided for in the pension
plan, what they were going to do was to further jeopardize the ability of the pension
plans to even pay the benefits that had been purchased with the premiums that were put
into the plans by the workers, by the employers, and with the accrued interest over the
years.
That was the primary recommendation given to the government of the day.
In the election campaign, this government said that our plan is to have a benefit that
will assist all of those retired seniors who have the low levels of income that we hear
talked about in the debates in this House; not only public sector pensioners from those
who worked for the government, not only those with their pension plans, but people who do
not even have a pension, who happen to be finished work. There are a lot of people in
Newfoundland and Labrador who worked all their lives for employers who had no pension
plan.
We committed to try to find a way to help everybody. So all of those
who suggest they are living on $11,000 a year or less, this government said in the
election: We will try to help you, whether you work for the provincial government, whether
you work for somebody else, or whether you do not have a pension at all. We will try to
help everybody.
Mr. Speaker, when we make a commitment saying we are going to try to do
that - that is why we say we will lay out for the public and unfold whatever plan we have
in a Budget that the Minister of Finance will present in a few days' time.
It is obvious that the Official Opposition, supported by the NDP
members, are fully willing, for political purposes only, to repeat the absolute mistakes
of the past which were advised against by an independent commissioner, which said only pay
for increases and benefits from pension plans if they have been funded in the years that
the pension plans were developed.
We will live up to our commitments if we possibly can, and we will let
the others stay in Opposition and promise whatever they want into the future.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of petitioners I spoke about it
today in Question Period, but I was inclined - I am angered today by the Minister of Mines
and Energy, and the verbiage that he just got on with. Let us present the minister with
some facts. He wants to talk about -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I have another petition, I say to the Minister of
Finance.
He wants to talk about, for political purposes. What was done to
petitioners with a letter signed by the Premier during the election, if he wants to talk
about political purposes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: You, Sir, were part of that - and he talks about
political purposes. During an election, last year, the year before -
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to the point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned
the letter again that was part of Question Period today, during the election. Again, it
was made quite clear; the representatives of the public service unions asked for a
commitment during the election that the government would meet with them after the
election, and that commitment was given by the government, simple and straightforward.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: We have to acknowledge, whether we like it or not,
that when we look at spending priorities, had successive governments, both Liberal and PC,
done privately what was done to the pension plans here in terms of taking money from the
pension plans to build infrastructure, those same successive governments, both Liberal and
PC, would be held accountable in a court of law. We have to understand clearly that we owe
a financial obligation to public service pensioners. If you look at -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: It is not true, I say to the minister. Every time the
issue of negotiation came up, Treasury Board said they will not be negotiating public
service pension increases. That was Treasury Board's response. That is a fact.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there are public service pensioners
today who are living below the poverty line, no question about it. We will see the type of
commitment the Premier talks about and government talks about in the federal budget, but
the reality is this: The issue has not changed. In ten years, public service pensioners,
like every public servant, like every member in the House, we are under wage freezes and
rollbacks. We should have the political fortitude to grant to public service pensioners
what we granted for ourselves and what we negotiated for people within the bargaining unit
known as NAPE.
Minister of Mines and Energy, it is a question of priority, Sir. It is
a question of where this government places its priorities and how it deals with people. We
will see that on Monday, but I am not hopeful; I will say that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to add just a few comments to this particular petition here. It
is of particular concern because there is no indexation of pensions there, and that is
something that certainly has to be pursued. In the interim, until such time as there is an
indexing of pensions, government has, of their own initiative, given increases to
pensioners. It has traditionally happened. The last time it happened, I think, was in
1989. It has not happened since that, since 1989. It has been ten years and there has not
been any. In fact, a lot of these people went through wage rollbacks when the best years
they had were stymied by having rollbacks during years that counted for pensionable years,
and they ended up getting lower pensions than they normally would. They bore the brunt of
wage rollbacks and now they are out getting much lower pensions than they normally would.
I really think, because of the wage rollback they had to undergo, and
there have been a large number of people who went out in that period, there should be a
recognition that there should be some voluntary contribution by this government to
increase those pensions. All people receiving those pensions were affected by it. People
who went out recently, people who went out earlier when the voluntary - it is not
indexation but it had a similar effect when government gave increases to these. That, in
effect, has not been there. It has been ten years. We know what ten years has done, with
inflation and the erosion of a dollar in ten years.
In all fairness, there has been no movement, there has been nothing. It
has gotten to the point where, over the past ten years, there has been nothing. Had there
been some increases, some contributions to that over the period of time, something could
have been done to prevent people having to come out in the Confederation Building, out in
an election...
I have every reason to believe the gentleman who spoke today and said
the Premier put his hand on his shoulder as he indicated. I do not know. It is only him or
the Premier who can say whether he spoke to that gentleman during the campaign.
Those types of things are giving a perception out there that something
would be done, and not doing something... Hopefully, the Budget coming down will make some
recognition of that. We have not had anything to indicate it is. All we have heard is
income for people on low income. They need that, that is important, but there has to be a
recognition of ten years. Inflation has eaten into a pension for too many reasons. Number
one, the money was used by this Province for people who were employed by the Province's
employers. Number two, a lot of people out there today face a much lower pension because
of wage rollbacks and restraints that we had here. I think it has been grossly unfair.
The government has not even been willing to acknowledge giving any
increase across the board at all to pensioners. I have not heard that from government, as
being an admission even to deal with that in any way, shape, or form in terms of an
increase.
I hear the government's argument. There is some validity to all sides,
but there is also a recognition that something has to be done; something that is fair and
something that is going to allow these people to move (inaudible) until a negotiated - and
I know it was mentioned, I think, by the Premier - indexation in the future. We really
need to get to indexation of pensions. For anybody employed in the public service there
should be some negotiations.
I know there is a price to pay with that, but it did not happen with
these people. These people are out now. We cannot revisit it while they are working and
there is equal contribution, but we can do something at least to compensate for it, and
that is to give increases to these people so they can at least fight inflation. Thank God,
inflation has not been so significant during those years; if not, they would be in far,
far greater straits than they are today.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: I wanted to follow on the words of the Opposition
House Leader with respect to his comments with respect to the petition that has been
presented, because the Opposition House Leader, in his comments - and I thank him for this
- he has acknowledged and made clear something which I find we need to rise and clarify
today.
The Opposition House Leader said: We have not seen any indication from
government thus far that they are prepared to give any across-the-board increases to
public service pensioners. The Opposition House Leader is absolutely right; that is
precisely right. We have not said anywhere, any time, any place - and we took a lot of
heat for it during the election campaign, took a lot of criticism for it during the
election campaign - that we were prepared to proceed at this time with across-the-board
increases.
What we said, and many members on this side - and we certainly received
lots of representation. I met many protesters in many places all across the Province. What
we have consistently said is: If this is an issue, we are going to talk about indexing in
the long-term, it has to be negotiated at the negotiating table with NAPE. We have said,
with respect to the broader issue of whether or not there would be an across-the-board
increase, that we were not prepared to make a commitment, that we would do such even
during an election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, we were criticized for that both in demonstrations, on
Open Line radio shows, and many other places all during the campaign. Likewise, during the
course of the campaign, issues that were raised by the nurses union, we said: Those have
to be dealt with at the negotiating table. I met protesters every day - sometimes four,
five or six times a day. I was very conscious and very aware that it was going to be
important during this campaign not to commit to do things that we were not absolutely
certain of being able to do if, at the end of the election, we were called upon to form a
government again.
Mr. Speaker, those are the facts. I'm proud we can sit here, as a
party, not having promised everything to everybody every time there was pressure brought
to bear on this government. That allows us to give the best and most objective
consideration to the dollars we have, and put those dollars to the best use possible.
I want to say this to the Opposition House Leader. The government does
understand that there are tens of thousands of senior citizens in this Province who are
amongst the poorest of the poor in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I know that the
Opposition House Leader would acknowledge as well - and I cannot believe it is the
position, and I won't suggest it is the position of the Opposition or the NDP - that we
should do something for poor seniors who happened to have spent part of their working
career working for government, but for all other poor senior citizens nothing should be
done. That if you happen to be a senior citizen who has a private sector pension plan and
who is poor, there is nothing for you from the public purse, from your purse; if you
happen to be a senior citizen who is poor, very poor, and has no pension at all, public or
private, there is nothing for you from the public purse, your purse; but if you happen to
be a senior citizen who worked for government and who is poor, there should be something
for you and for you only.
I believe we need to look at our priorities. We need to recognize those
who are most poor, those who are in greatest need. Whether they happened to have spent
their careers working for government, or their careers working in retail, or their
careers, perhaps, not having a steady job and not having accumulated a pension, all of
them - if you are poor you need an equal measure of consideration, an equal access to
whatever the government can afford to give. That is the nature of the program we are going
to bring forward Monday.
I can tell you there are seniors, those who have the smallest pensions,
those who have the greatest need, those who worked for government for many years, who will
be assisted, former public service employees; but so too will assistance be offered to
those who work in the private sector and those who had no pension at all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 1,284 residents of my
constituency from the Placentia area. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:
We, the undersigned citizens of the Placentia region, hereby draw your
attention to the existing unsafe conditions as they now exist on the Trans-Canada Highway
near the Whitbourne-Blaketown exits;
WHEREAS it is the duty of government, through the enactment and
enforcement of the Highway Safety Act, to protect the citizens not only from commuters but
also from unsafe highways; and
WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one
priority of any government;
THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government take all measures
necessary to ensure that a divided highway continues past the Whitbourne-Blaketown exits,
and that the twinned highway include the Argentia access overpass, as in duty bound your
petitioners will ever pray.
I am pleased today to have the opportunity to stand and speak on this
very important issue and to present this petition on behalf of the people I represent.
I guess as the prayer of the petition states, it must be of utmost
importance that we place safety as the number one concern. Studies have shown, all across
this country of ours, that a divided highway is, without a doubt, the safest route to
take.
Back in 1996 the people of the area had the opportunity to sit down
with people from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and review three
different plans that all allowed for an overpass at the Argentia access. These three plans
came from a company that was hired by the provincial government, a company known as Davis
Engineering, at a cost of $40,000, to come up with plans that would bring forward the
rural arterial divided highway standard for a speed of 100 kilometres.
Those people that day spent the whole day in the Whitbourne area, going
over these three plans and trying to figure out which one was not only the most important
to them but, indeed, the safest. They decided on one of those plans, and were very pleased
that the consultation process had taken place where they felt they had some input.
Over the next couple of years this government arbitrarily announced
they were going to start the road. On July 21, 1998, the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation, Mr. Matthews at the time, announced that work would begin on this road
during the next construction season, but he did not tell the people that they had changed
the plans they had put forward to the people a few years before that. This, I guess, is
what brought about a meeting in Blaketown on November 18, 1998, where the people once
again asked to have put forward the plan for the twinned highway and what the government
was planning to do. This new plan that was put forward at that November 18 meeting in
Blaketown did not have a divided highway passing through Whitbourne and did not, I repeat,
address the Argentia access overpass.
I am sad to say that over the past couple of years we have had
fatalities in that area and people from my district have paid the ultimate price. I say it
is about time that this government go back to the original plan and address the safety
concern that was put forward. It is about time that this government go to the people in
the Placentia area and hold a public consultation process on the plans for the highway out
in that area, because it affects many people from my district who travel over that highway
each and every day. These 1,284 people are only the beginning of further petitions to come
from that area relating to this project. It is a very important concern for these people.
I say that less than a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to
attend another meeting out in Dildo where the people of the area once again came together
to address their concerns, and address the safety concern most of all. These people came
forward and asked once again that they have an opportunity to have some input into what
was going in that area. Mr. Speaker, we were left with the impression after that meeting
that over $3 million would be spent on road reconfiguration in that area that would only
take away one left turn. It has been known far and wide through studies and through facts
that have been put forward, not only by the people in the area but indeed people before,
through the Department of Works, Services and Transportation -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: - that brought forward these concerns, to be put
forward, that a divided highway is the safest way to go.
I stress, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people in my area, from a
safety point of view, from a life point of view, that we look very seriously at making
sure the divided highway continues through Whitbourne and an access is put forward -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: - and put in at the Argentia overpass and that safety
is the main concern, not only on behalf of the people in my district, Mr. Speaker, but
indeed on behalf of the people of the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the hon. Member for Conception Bay South is asking leave to speak I
would be prepared to - if he would like to speak I am prepared to permit that and sit
down.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
MR. MATTHEWS: The issue, Mr. Speaker, that has been raised by the
petition by the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is one that has been raised a number
of times with me. I dealt with it when I was in the Department of Works, Services and
Transportation, and because I am covering off for the minister there now at the moment I
will speak to it.
There is no question that the issue has been a little controversial in
the area in terms of whether or not we four-lane the highway to the Argentia access road
or whether we do it two or three kilometres further east to an area approximating the Old
Brigus Road.
I want to point out a couple of things just to be on the record for
accuracy purposes. Consultation did occur with the stakeholders in the area. As a matter
of fact, before I announced the change to reducing the four-laning back a few kilometres
the major stakeholder out there, being the town of Whitbourne, was consulted. I brought
them in and I advised them that this may be the case and they were comfortable as a
council with that. As a matter of fact, that was the direction they wanted to go in.
So the issue is really a question of whether or not we should be
four-laning even as far as the old Brigus Road. There was no requirement for us to
four-lane to any particular point on the Trans-Canada Highway. We could have stopped the
four-laning in the Roaches Line area. We could have stopped the four-laning at the
Salmonier Line, but we decided to go to the Whitbourne area so that we could address some
concerns for safety purposes between Route 80-81, which is the route going into Whitbourne
from Blaketown.
The decision that I announced, and the determination to stop the
four-laning at a point where it will now stop, was taken after careful consideration given
to the engineers who work in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and a
consultant independently appointed who assured me that this would address the safety
concerns at Route 80-81 junction, which is going between Blaketown into Whitbourne.
As far as the allegations that safety is the only issue, I would agree
with the hon. member that safety is a predominant issue. Once I was satisfied that safety
concerns were being adequately addressed in the new plan, I will tell him quite honestly
that I did take into account the 150 jobs that are located in that small business district
that I understand would be in jeopardy at best, and probably eliminated at worst, if in
fact we went with the four-laning right to that junction.
Simply put, stopping the four-laning two kilometres further east than
the original plan is not compromising safety, and it is not compromising a solution to the
Route 80-81 problem, which is where the light blinks there by the service station. If the
hon. member is suggesting that no consideration should be given to 150 full-time
employees, then I would ask him to acknowledge his acceptance -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: - of responsibility for causing 150 jobs to disappear
in the economy when there is no need of it.
MR. MANNING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, on a point of
order.
MR. MANNING: I would just like to go back to what the minister
touched on in regards to his consultations after they decided that they were going to
change the plan at the -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order.
MR. MANNING: I am on a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order.
MR. MANNING: I would just like to say that the public consultation
process you held was with one gentleman. The people in that area want to know if that is
what this government calls public consultation, when you go out and talk to one
individual.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to rise on a point of
order, but I must do so because the allegation just put forward by the hon. member - and I
do not think he is intentionally doing it - to suggest that I consulted with one person is
an absolute and total untruth. I had dialogue with the Town of Whitbourne, I had dialogue
with other stakeholders in the area, and the conclusion that I came to was after careful
consideration of all of the information. I would be happy to name them and to table the
information in the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: You get your facts straight.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in support of the petition presented by my colleague.
Since being in this House, it is very interesting to sit here and listen to the debate
again on the highway in Whitbourne, as to exactly what is going to transpire. It is very
interesting to note that two members who are not over there any more, maybe along with
somebody else who is still sitting over there, made a trip to Whitbourne and all of a
sudden what was discussed in the meeting - the rules changed.
I am led to believe today that the engineers who put forward the
proposals in the day-long meeting, at the end of the day, do not now know or did not
sanction what was eventually approved for that particular area.
AN HON. MEMBER: How would you know?
MR. FRENCH: How would I know? You would be surprised sometimes. It
is very, very simple to note that maybe the same thing that happened to this road happened
to the school. I am sure there are members opposite today who certainly know what happened
to that. There was an all-day session, there was a plan laid out by engineers, and at the
end of the day that was changed.
Two of the members who were involved in that, like I said, are no
longer back here. Maybe that is one of the reasons they are not back here anymore; because
when we go out to people, the least we should be doing is telling people the truth. That
is probably one of the most dangerous intersections along the Trans-Canada Highway. There
are people who have died in that particular
section quite recently. I am sure the Member
for Bellevue, on the other side, knows who I am talking about and may very well be one of
them who made the jaunt to Whitbourne.
Mr. Speaker, I am all in favour of keeping jobs but I believe in the
consultation process. That is what should happen in he Whitbourne area. When we draw up
plans and when we bring in plans, when we do that we should not change them at the
eleventh hour on the whim or the snap of a finger of two or three politicians who are no
longer here. When the safety issues are put forward, as they have been put forward in
Whitbourne, then that is what should be first and foremost in the mind of everybody in
this House, the safety issue in that particular area.
The former Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is no longer here. I
wonder why. I do not really need to wonder why because I know why he is no longer here.
I think it is time that we went back to he drawing board, that what the
people are seeing today in that particular area is approved. Maybe the great predictor,
the man who predicts everything, the man who rushed back from Clarenville in 1996, the man
who predicted that people would not be in this House in 1999, maybe he should stay out of
it this time. Maybe he should stay away from the process, along with his two defeated
buddies, and maybe, just maybe, we will bring fear and judgement to the people in that
particular area. It is one of the most dangerous intersections on the Trans-Canada
Highway, and something certainly has to be done to correct the problem that is out there.
Mr. Speaker, I fully support the petition that is presented today. It
is unfortunate that petitions have been offered to other people on the other side and they
do not really seem to want to present them. If they do not want to present them, we will
certainly continue to present them. If it is involving that intersection, we will present
them again. The member opposite certainly knows what I am talking about because they are
here from his district as well.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time and I thank the
House for its time, but I think we should have another look at the interchange and the
changing at Whitbourne.
Thank you.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. the Minister of Finance:
I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit
Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending
March 31, 2000. By way of interim supply and in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.
sgd.:
A.M. House, Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of
Interim Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 2)
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole,
Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought we had carried
(inaudible) the resolution. I heard no naysayers.
I will be brief.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: Mr. Chairman, members have before them Bill 2, which
sets forth the general amount of $1,057,878,300 and has included as well the departmental
breakouts of the amounts to be allocated to departments and to consolidate essential
services in government.
The individual ministers will respond to any particular questions. I
would point out that the general budget for the Province is in the amount of $3.4 billion.
The amount we are asking for is close to one-third of what we would spend, even though it
covers one-quarter of the year. The reason for that is that some of our expenditures are
loaded toward the front end of the year, and these include particularly the work that
government would contract out in works and services for road work, and the other capital
projects. Those tend to occur and be allocated at the beginning of the year. Therefore,
our capital expenditures tend to be made more at this time. Of course, our expenditures
are therefore not evenly spread throughout the twelve months of the fiscal year.
That being said, we look forward to hearing from the hon. members
opposite and indeed some of our colleagues on this side of the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What we have just seen is the typical way in which the Minister of
Finance introduces his bills. He gets up and says: I want to spend $1 billion and I am
going to let you have all of several minutes to discuss it.
He does not give us any explanations at all for the various headings.
We have listed out here again, as I have said on occasion before, just a statement of
listing by department and a total amount of money. Unlike the regular budget, of course,
you will get details and breakdowns that will come by either the program or by the
function or by the division of the ministry involved.
It would help greatly if we were to see some breakdown by the various
departments. Then we could know exactly what items we could be drawing more attention to;
however, this is the standard practice. It has been a practice since I have been here,
with Interim Supply, and I guess it has been the practice in the parliamentary system for
a long time and probably will continue for a long time, long after the Member for Exploits
and I are no longer members of this Legislature, which will not be real soon, I say to the
minister.
Certainly we on this side want to have more details and we invite, in
their turn, the various ministers to stand and comment on the programs that they are going
to be doing over the next quarter of a year. We anticipate that the Budget will not be
passed by this House in its detail; it requires seventy-five hours of discussion. That
generally will not happen until probably around June 10, June 12, or June 20, thereabouts,
depending on how much time we take up in the Budget debate and the seventy-five hours
assigned for the estimates.
This is the beginning of a process, and part of the process that I want
to draw attention to today is something that the Minister of Finance announced a little
while ago. He had those things called pre-Budget consultations. This was announced a week
or so ago, on March 5, and we notice that the booklet is identical to last year's booklet.
In fact, the whole process here, the colours did not change. The numbers that were in
there, they are last year's Budget numbers. When it comes to a pre-Budget consultation
process, the process itself, I should say, is commendable. Holding pre-Budget
consultations is the right thing to do. It has its merits. It is a process that is
recommended by various levels of government. In fact, I now note that some municipalities
are having pre-Budget consultations, and that is commendable; however, we want to say to
the House today that if the minister is going to have pre-Budget consultations, he has to
make it meaningful.
The minister put out a press release on March 5, a Friday afternoon,
saying, if you want to consult with us you can do it through the Internet. You can send us
messages by fax. You can send it by e-mail. You could get the document on the Internet
immediately and on Monday morning you can pick up copies of this in the various government
offices.
On Friday night I got my first telephone call saying, "How do I
get a copy of the pre-Budget consultation document?" I had to say to them,
"Well, the only place you can get it over the weekend is probably through your
Internet service. The person said, "Well that is fine, except (
a) I don't have a
computer; and (
b) I am not hooked up to any kind of an Internet provider at all."
Therefore that person, all that weekend, who wanted to make a
presentation, did not have access to the pre-Budget consultation document. I was able to
go and facilitate that person getting the document because of my ability to be able access
the Internet.
We want to say to the government that pre-Budget consultations are a
good thing. I want to say that we commend it. However, if it is going to work there has to
be some meaningful dialogue and some meaningful consultations taking place. For such
consultations to be effective -
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted maybe to, by way of a question, ask the hon. finance
critic if he can explain to us - while he is talking about this pre-Budget consultation
process that he supports - how many times the previous Progressive Conservative
Administration had pre-Budget consultations. I think the record, over seventeen years of
government, will show that it was zero. They did not even know what the concept was. Now
they are saying they support it but they do not quite like how it was done. Interesting. I
would like to see what the historical record is.
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. the minister has just shown
his contempt for the process here. He presents himself as an agitator, as a person who
wants to interrupt and to get involved in the process. He has not been in Hansard now for
about two-and-a-half pages or so and he just cannot stand it if he is not on every second
page. So we can expect him to be jumping up like a jackrabbit, wanting to make sure that
on every second page of Hansard his name appears. We can expect him to jump up and make
these kinds of nuisance commentaries. It serves no purpose and we on this side have come
to expect that level of debate from the hon. the minister and we will just simply ignore
it.
What I was saying about the pre-Budget consultations is that - and I
say to the minister, if you are going to use the data from last year's Budget then there
is not much point in having pre-Budget consultations. For the pre-Budget consultations to
be effective, a minimum of three things must prevail.
Number one, the public must believe that they are going to have an
impact on the decisions being made by government and reflected in the Budget itself. On
that issue, people that I have talked to in this Province were not convinced that their
representations on the pre-Budget consultations would have any impact on the final
decision-making in this Budget process whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman, the second condition has to be that the financial
information in the document has to be up-to-date. We have had millions and millions of
dollars spent since last year's Budget, which was presented on March 26, 1998, and
certainly there is a lot of update that would be needed. If people are going to have some
say in where the government should have its priorities, they need to have access to
up-to-date information, not data that is a year old or just about a year old.
Mr. Chairman, then there has to be time for interest groups to have
their say. We note that the document was available on the Internet on Friday, March 5,
available in hard copy on Monday morning, March 8, and then the hearing started on the
tenth. The document was ready on the eighth. The people were told: If you want to have
input, you can have it on the tenth and the eleventh - not much time.
First of all, we want to say to the government that in deciding your
priorities you went through a charade. It meant nothing because your document data was out
of date. You did not allow enough time for people to have any meaningful input whatsoever.
Of course, you also had to realize that if someone were to call in and ask for a mail-out
copy, they could not do it before Monday morning. If you were going to get things sent out
to the various parts of this Province, it is no good to ask for information on Monday
morning and expect to have a document back to them and have their presentations ready for
Wednesday or Thursday evening of that same week.
This particular document and the process is nothing more than a public
relations exercise. It is a charade. It really amounts o nothing. I want to say up front
on this Budget exercise that this particular process can be effective; however, we should
note that if you are not going to change either the booklet or the style, you could have
had this information ready in mid-January. There is no reason why it could not have been
ready a lot earlier. Then we could have had some meaningful dialogue.
I want to also say that we want to say to the government there have to
be greater measures of accountability in budgeting. If we are going to make decisions on
budgets, we have to make sure that the process is more up-to-date than it is.
I note that several provinces - I know that Alberta, as an example -
have passed
an act called, The Public Accountability Act. That particular act in Alberta
requires the Minister of Finance to submit an update on that province's finances at the
end of each fiscal quarter. For example, the financial year begins on April 1, so I guess
the first quarter would be April, May and June. The Minister of Finance, who is called the
Treasurer in Alberta, has to have a public document ready by August 31. The first quarter
would be August 31. He must have another document ready by November 30, and another
document ready by February 28.
If we had adopted that process in this Province - and it is recommended
that we would - we would have more public accountability. Then when we came to discuss
things like Interim Supply, we would have a more reasonable knowledge of where the
government's priorities were. We would have up-to-date information.
Let me explain to you that if that can be done in Alberta then in can
be done in Newfoundland and Labrador. In the Province of Saskatchewan it is a legal
requirement that the Minister of Finance present a mid-year financial statement. In
Newfoundland and Labrador, do we require a mid-year financial statement? No, we do not.
Now, with computerization, it is possible to give a monthly financial statement if need
be. That is what computers are about. They are about people having more ready access to
information. I want to say to the Minister of Fisheries that it is possible for us to have
better information, more up-to-date, Then this whole process of budgeting would be far
more reasonable.
If in Alberta it is required under their Accountability Act that they
would go and present regular quarterly statements in detail about all of the province's
finances, if it is done in Saskatchewan and done in most other provinces, we have to ask
the Minister of Finance, why are we not doing it here? Why do we wait until the end of the
year and then we present a booklet called Making Choices: The Pre-Budget Public
Consultation . The data is one year old and we are saying: Would you look at this and
tell us where your priorities are?
If we are going to have a pre-budget consultation process, we have to
make it relevant, we have to have up-to-date information. It is totally unnecessary for
people to have this kind of data presented to them when, with all of the electronic gages
we have now, we can certainly go and have this information presented a lot more rapidly
and more accurately than was possible in previous times.
Mr. Chairman, I do believe that my fifteen minutes have expired. I have
noticed that. I am asking for leave to continue, for some time.
CHAIR: Order, please!
It being 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, could the member take his seat so I can
read the Late Show questions?
MR. H. HODDER: I'm sorry, yes, Mr. Chairman, you will have to read
the questions.
CHAIR: Then you are requesting leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
It is 4:00 p.m. and I have to announce the questions for the Late Show.
The first question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by
the Minister of Finance re my question regarding impacts of the federal Budget on
Newfoundland and Labrador. That is from the Member for Waterford Valley.
The second question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by
the Minister of Health and Community Services re my question on the Canada Health and
Social Transfer. That is the Member for Ferryland.
The third question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by
the Minister of Health and Community Services re my question on a commitment to open
chronic-care beds at Golden Heights Manor. That is from the Member for Bonavista South.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Continuing on with the -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I have ten minutes left, I say to the
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, because there has been an intervening speaker. Even
if it is the Chair himself it still applies.
I want to say, in conclusion to my comments on the pre-Budget
consultations, just to finalize my commentary on that, to say that if it is going to be
meaningful there have to be certain conditions attached to it. The data has to be
up-to-date, there has to be sufficient time, and people have to be convinced there is
going to be some recognition of their input. On all three counts the Minister of Finance
failed miserably this year. So I assume that the Budget has been written, and there has
not been time to have any substantive dialogue with the general public. Therefore we know
that the Budget is prepared and is now, in fact, so well prepared that the Minister of
Finance today said: I am going to present it three or four days early. In fact it was
going to come down on Thursday, March 25, I think it is, and now it is going to come down
on Monday, March 22.
Of course, we know that it is coming down on Monday, March 22. Part of
it is in connection with certain administrative functions pertaining to the House. I know
the Minister of Finance and the government would like to get the Budget down a little
earlier because I am sure that facilitates a potential legislative agenda. Therefore we
call it what it is. There is an expectation that there is a legislative program that may
unfold. I say to the minister that that is one reason. I am sure there may be other
reasons as well. There has to be some reason why you moved the Budget from Thursday back
to Monday. It is not that Monday is a better day, or Thursday is not a good day, but there
has to be some reason.
We want to ask: why would you move the Budget from Thursday back to
Monday? There has to be some reason for that. It is not that Monday is washday. Maybe they
want to do whatever you do on wash day. I want to say to the minister across from me here
that we understand, I suspect, what the agenda is. It might have something to do with the
silence that has been imposed on certain phases of collective bargaining or something like
that. I am not going to spell it out. The ministry announces what its legislative program
is.
It is not for me to announce what the program is, but certainly there
is an expectation that there is a connection between certain impasses in collective
bargaining or potential impasses in collective bargaining and the fact that the Budget
gets moved ahead and what the legislative program might be here. The coming of the interim
supply has to be ready by the end of the month and all that kind of thing. There is a lot
of things here that are in play.
We want as well to come back to several other matter here, but I do
understand that there are some other speakers here who will be speaking to this. So in the
interest of making sure that we get as many speakers on this afternoon as possible I will
now yield the time to one of my other colleagues. I do believe somebody else is ready on
this side.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the hon. member for yielding and giving me some time to say a
few words this afternoon concerning, I guess, the Throne Speech and the goings-on of the
government across the way. I guess the only part of the Throne Speech that I enjoyed was
the end of it. Boy, was I ever glad it was over. Because it was very dry, it lacked
imagination, and lacked planning. I say that this government is on a roller coaster that
is going to be their last ride. I say that especially to the hon. minister across the way
who has a smile from ear to ear, but someday that will come down.
I would like to take the opportunity today to thank the people in the
historic District of Placentia & St. Mary's for placing their trust and confidence in
me on February 9 to represent them in this hon. House over the next four years.
AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe.
MR. MANNING: Maybe. Yes, I say to the minister, maybe. I would say
I would certainly thank the people in that area. I thank all the people involved with me
over the past number of weeks. I come here to bring forward the concerns of the people in
the District of Placentia & St. Mary's as it relates to many different areas such as
the fishery, the Voisey's Bay development in Argentia, many other concerns. Many people in
my district are hurting because of the results of the mandate of this government over the
past number of years. People have been forced to pack up and leave this Province due to
Liberal, and I say in all sincerity, Liberal mismanagement. People have been forced to
pack up and move out of this Province. Eleven thousand people left this Province in 1998.
Many of them left from the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and the Liberal
mismanagement -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in 1989 when your buddy in front of you
was the Premier?
MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I say to the hon. minister across the
way that he would not want to know the numbers in 1989. Over the past three years - 1996,
1997 and 1998 - we had over 30,000 Newfoundlanders leave this Province. We have very
little preparation being put in place to keep these people here and to try to keep these
communities alive.
AN HON. MEMBER: The net for 1989 was 1,790 people.
MR. MANNING: Yes, the net for 1989 was 1,790 people.
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MANNING: I say that it is very important that we get the record
straight and set the record straight, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy on a point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There was some reference to the
issue of out-migration and Liberal mismanagement. I was raising the question privately
across the floor but I will try to get it on the public record so that the speaker can
respond to it.
I was referencing 1989 when a member of the Legislature, now the Member
for Lewisporte, was the premier for some forty-one days, I believe. He indicated to -
AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-four days.
MR. GRIMES: Forty-four days. I am sorry to shortchange you there.
The idea is that the number in 1989, net for the year, was 1,091. That is because after
the government changed in April, 10,000 people came back.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte, to the point of order.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, obviously first of all it is not a point
of order. Secondly, the Minister of Mines and Energy must have overdosed on stunned pills
again today, because the government did not get sworn in until some time in May, which was
into the next fiscal year anyway. The fact of the matter is that this government has an
abysmal record when it comes to the dying, the killing, of rural Newfoundland and
Labrador! That is the point, Mr. Chairman!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: I am glad that my -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. MANNING: I say to the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy -
CHAIR: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Placentia & St.
Mary's.
MR. MANNING: I am glad that the Chair recognizes me. It does not
seem like the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy or the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture wants to.
I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am glad to be here today to
bring forward the concerns of the people of Placentia & St. Mary's as it relates to
since 1989 when this government came into power. All I am doing is bringing forward the
concerns of out-migration and how important it is, not only to the District of Placentia
& St. Mary's but indeed to the Province as a whole.
I had the privilege last year to travel up into the Northern Peninsula
and to see the area there that is being struck by out-migration and the downturn in our
fishery. To see the government that has an agenda, and a premier that has an agenda that
is not concerning Newfoundland and Labrador but it is a very personal agenda in what he
plans to do over the next couple of years. I say that we have to put the people first. We
have to put the people in priority and we have to put the people in a situation where
their concerns, where their issues, are brought forward and are dealt with in an
honourable way. That is why the people elected us to this House, to make sure their
concerns are brought forward. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to stand here and
present, over the next couple of years, the concerns of the people of Placentia & St.
Mary's.
I say to the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy, you may fool around
with numbers - and he is pretty quick on jumping on his feet to fool around with the
numbers - but it is important that we remember the numbers of people out here that are
hurting; and the numbers of people in rural Newfoundland and especially in my district
that have been hurting for a number of year, whether it is in Placentia with the
withdrawal of the Americans from the naval base in Argentia, or Long Harbour where people
from my area worked, or it is the downturn in the fishery.
I see that there are some people on that side of the House who have a
heart and have spoken out about the concerns of the fishery as it relates to many parts of
Newfoundland and Labrador, such as the hon. Member for Port de Grave. Not that I want to
give him too much praise but definitely, he does speak out on behalf of the people who are
hurting and (inaudible) in need of the fishery. There are some things with the fishery
that the hon. Member for Port de Grave does that I don't agree with. I will have time to
bring that up later.
I say it is an opportunity for me over the next couple of years to
bring forward the concerns and I intend to do that. Even if the hon. Minister for Mines
and Energy tries to talk me down, that is not going to work. I just want to serve notice
today it is not going to work. I had the opportunity to debate some issues with the
minister before while he