Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 24 March 2005 (45th General Assembly, 2nd Session)
2005-03-24
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 24. 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XlV
No. 7
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon I am very pleased to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, the
hon. George Smitherman, Minister of Health for the Province of Ontario, and his
assistant, Mr. Ken Chan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: We have members' statements this afternoon as follows: The
hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl; the hon. the Member for the
District of Exploits, the Leader of the Opposition; the hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; and the hon. the Member for the District
of Grand Bank.
The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand here today to congratulate the participants and winners who
participated in the annual Heritage Fair at St. Peter's Elementary School in
Mount Pearl. I visited this school this morning, to judge approximately sixty
projects prepared by the Grade 6 students.
Mr. Speaker, the Heritage Fair is a national program in schools which
encourage children to explore and research any aspect of Newfoundland and
Labrador and/or Canadian culture, famous people, events and places. The children
acquire a wealth of information from participating in projects of this nature,
and it enables them to share their knowledge with others. The projects presented
covered everything from: the 1929 Burin Tsunami, Canadian inventors,
Newfoundland trivia, Castle Hill, Alexander Graham Bell, The S.S. Floizel, the
Great Fire of 1892, the Newfoundland Pony, and many more.
Mr. Speaker, as I already mentioned, I was one of the judges of this Heritage
Fair and I must admit it was very difficult deciding on the winners. The
knowledge gained by all Grade 6 students was very valuable, and I wish them all
good luck in their future endeavours.
Without further ado, Mr. Speaker, the winners of this year's Heritage Fair
events are: Group Participation by: Stephanie Gallant, Laura Noseworthy, Vanessa
Power, Nicholas Chretien and Ryan Works.
Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to join with me in congratulating the Grade 6
students of St. Peter's Elementary School, teachers, parents and friends who
helped them out with this important activity.
Thank you, very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Mr. Bob Rideout, a veteran of World
War II, for his dedicated service to his comrades and fellow Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Mr. Rideout of Botwood, who served with the 166 th Newfoundland
Field Regiment during the Second World War, was awarded the Minister of Veterans'
Affairs commendation in January. This award is given to an individual who has
contributed to the well-being of veterans in this country.
Since his time in the military, he has been involved with various volunteer
activities with the Royal Canadian Legion, to which he was elected President of
Branch 12 in Botwood in 1992. Once he completed his term, he received the Palm
Leaf to the Meritorious Service Medal. He is also heavily involved with the
Exploits Memorial Veterans' Pavilion at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Centre in
Botwood.
Mr. Rideout took a position on the veterans' service committee of the
Newfoundland command for the Legion. He was given special responsibility for
that pavilion in Botwood, which he visits at least two or three times a week to
spend time with the residents there. He provides comfort and support to the sick
when they need it the most.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in the House to join with me in congratulating
Mr. Bob Rideout on receiving this prominent award.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishment of an incredibly talented
young girl from Milltown, Bay d'Espoir, in the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la
Hune.
Mr. Speaker, six-year-old Julie Young began writing at an early age. In fact,
her keenness for poetry began in Kindergarten. Ms Young's talent is obvious.
At just six years old, Ms Young wrote a poem entitled: The Circus. This poem,
which was used as part of her school's graduation ceremony and printed in the
local newspaper, was honoured by a national literary body.
Mr. Speaker, Julie's poem was honoured at the 2004 Canadian National Poetry
Contest. The contest was open to poets of all ages from across the country.
The Circus will also be included in the Poetry Institute of Canada's
eleventh annual publication. An amazing honour for a talented young writer.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Julie on her
accomplishment and in wishing her all the success in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Grand Bank
Theatre Festival Committee for signing on, for the second consecutive year,
well-known writer and performer Bernie Stapleton as artistic director for the
2005 festival season.
The Grand Bank Regional Theatre Company and Festival will celebrate its tenth
anniversary this summer. The Theatre Company is the only professional theatre
company on the Burin Peninsula. During its nine successful seasons to date, the
company has employed young people from the Burin Peninsula and boasted larger
audiences every year. Bernie Stapleton has written four new plays for this
season and she said: I see the stories and the culture of the Burin Peninsula as
being as worthy and fascinating as any theatre-goer could wish for.
In addition to the tremendous support from the people in Grand Bank and
surrounding communities, the festival has continued to be a drawing card for
tourists to the Burin Peninsula. It is featured as a highlight in all of the
tourism literature.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending best
wishes to the Grand Bank Regional Theatre Company and Festival, and to Ms
Stapleton for a most successful theatre season.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In recognition of Nutrition Month, I rise today to talk about and acknowledge
something our government is taking very seriously - the health and wellness of
our citizens.
Recent health indicators show our Province leads Canada in obesity, smoking
rates and lack of physical exercise. In addition, we have among the highest
rates of childhood onset diabetes and cardiac disease - chronic diseases that
can be prevented and better managed through healthy and active living. The time
has come to take back control of our own individual health.
Mr. Speaker, that is why government had dedicated $2.4 million for wellness
initiatives in Budget 2005. This represents the single largest investment in
health promotion in the history of the Province. Just like the 3 Rs are the
foundation for life-long learning; prevention, promotion and public health are
critical to better health outcomes and keeping people healthy.
Building upon government's Throne Speech commitment to keep people
healthier, this spring government will unveil a wellness strategy to complement
the ongoing work of community organizations and the six regional wellness
coalitions, including programs like: Moving for Seniors, which promotes healthy
aging for our seniors, or the Restaurant Heart Smart Program, launched with the
Heart and Stroke Foundation to encourage healthier food choices.
Acting on the recommendations, Mr. Speaker, of the Provincial Wellness
Advisory Council, our wellness strategy will concentrate on improving healthy
eating, reducing obesity, reducing smoking rates, reducing injury rates and
increasing physical activity. These are all important in the prevention of
chronic illnesses, such as: stroke, osteoporosis, diabetes, heart disease and
some forms of cancer.
As a government, Mr. Speaker, we can and we will provide the tools for people
to become better equipped to lead healthier lives. We plan to implement a
Healthy Foods in Schools program, including new nutrition guidelines for schools
and a Healthy Schools Youth Summit in the fall; establish a community grants
program to build on existing community wellness projects; enhance school food
programs to improve healthy eating; develop a social marketing campaign to
promote healthy living, create a Teen Wellness team to engage the participation
of youth and strengthen the presence of wellness-dedicated staff in the new
health authorities.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to issue a challenge to everyone to infuse a
healthy culture in all areas of community life, in our families, in our schools,
and in our workplaces. We all have the power to take real action to improve our
health. I encourage people to look for opportunities each and every day to make
an improvement in their own lives.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
If you want to look at nutrition and exercise, we do not have to go any
further than my good colleague and friend, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile,
how it can change a person's life.
In this statement, I say to the minister, it looks like there are a lot of
good initiatives. Anything that you can do to help wellness in our youth, and in
our population in general, is a great start. I know that diabetes and obesity
are major problems.
Again, I see what you are going to do in the future, but I just look back;
this government says one thing and does another. Here we are there talking about
youth, and nutrition for youth, and they just took out $250,000 from the Kids
Eat Smart Program. Two hundred and fifty-thousand dollars. Over the last two
years there were 400 teaching positions eliminated. One of the major programs
that has been eliminated in the school system: physical education. Here we are,
saying we are going to promote healthiness and promote exercise, and here we are
taking it away from those programs.
I say to the minister, milk is major nutrition for any youth, for
osteoporosis, mainly in women, and we need to do something with the high cost of
milk. If you cannot bring the cost down, try to help in some way with a subsidy
for people who cannot afford milk, because milk is a major staple, for
osteoporosis in women, and for youth, in the development of their bones.
I say to the minister, I wish you the best of luck in this, but please,
please, if you say you are going to do it, do it. Put the money back in the Kids
Eat Smart Program. That would be a good start. Put the physical education
teachers back in the school system, and then we can see some real good progress
for our youth in our Province.
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.
We, in the NDP, welcome a concentration on nutrition and the promotion of
wellness. It is interesting to note, from studies done, for example, in Nova
Scotia ,while attitudes may change, there are actually almost no results in
school children where you have a nutrition program only, but if you have a
comprehensive healthy living program which combines a healthy eating curriculum,
daily gym classes, healthy and inexpensive food, and accessible after-school
programs, they actually show that the rate of childhood obesity was reduced by
60 per cent and the number of overweight children in schools reduced by at least
50 per cent.
Attitudes are fine, but the actual comprehensive program is what is needed to
work. We need a full universal school meal program so every child in this
Province - not such 15 per cent - can take advantage of it. We need to have
daily gym classes. We need to have the nutrition side, that the minister talks
about, but we need a comprehensive program if we are really going to tackle this
problem and give our young kids a decent chance for the future and also give
them a better life.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, in answer to questions about the cancer
treatment clinic in Central Newfoundland, the Premier answered and these are his
words "...I can only look you straight in the face and I can only tell you
time and time again that cancer is something that is very dear to my heart
personally.... If we can do something, we are going to do something."
The Premier knows that the former Minister of Health toured that facility in
Central Newfoundland and got a first-hand look at the need. He knows that the
health care boards have recommended the facility as a priority.
I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: If he truly cares so much, will he agree to
accompany his minister to Central Newfoundland next week and personally tour the
cancer clinic and show some real leadership with respect to this issue?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition is perhaps aware - or my guess is that he
does, in fact, know - that the Premier will not be in the Province, actually, on
Tuesday of next week, which is the date, I say, Mr. Speaker, that I will be
travelling to Grand Falls-Windsor. I look forward to the tour. It is important
to us, as a government, it is important to me, as the Minister of Health and
Community Services, and I look forward to spending time at the facility so that
I can gather the information which is required and report back to my colleagues
in due course.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last week, in discussing the crab fishery, the Premier said in
this House, and again I quote his exact words: Reports are absolutely useless if
we do not act on them, so we are being decisive. We are trying new solutions on
a pilot basis.
Those are the Premier's words, Mr. Speaker. The Dunne report recommended a
pilot project for production quotas, resource material sharing, but with these
words - this is the Dunne report - only if the FFAW agree.
I ask the Premier: Why is he insisting on being decisive - because we know
the Premier is making this decision - why is he insisting on being decisive and
doing the exact opposite of what was recommended to the government in this
matter?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Dunne Report was provided to government on December 14,
2003, after over fifteen meetings throughout Newfoundland and Labrador by
Commissioner Eric Dunne with people who were involved in the fishing industry,
after a shutdown in 2003 in the crab fishery and a number of shutdowns in the
shrimp fishery over previous years. Mr. Speaker, there were recommendations that
government should deal with from a policy perspective, including a Licensing
Board, a Quality Assurance Program, and Raw Material Sharing.
Mr. Speaker, we indicated last year, on February 4, that we supported Mr.
Dunne's report in principle and that we would move forward on it. Over the
course of the winter we developed an approach to Raw Material Sharing. Mr. Dunne
never did say that it should not proceed without the support of any particular
group. He said that substantive and reasonable objection should be dealt with.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we intend to do if we can get people to the table to
try and work on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer even though it is not
from the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the fact that the minister indicated that the
Dunne Report was received in December of 2003 and they said they would follow
the recommendations in February of 2004. Mr. Speaker, the minister, in a letter
to the FFAW, after that, on April 21, 2004, stated he would commence a public
debate on this issue. His exact quote - and again I will read it to him - from
his own letter: I must and will ensure that all stakeholders have an opportunity
to participate freely in the debate over this very important issue. His own
words, with his own name signed to it, in April, after everything else.
I ask the minister, in the absence of the Premier: Why is it that your
government is now breaking this promise to consult fully and openly, and has not
consulted with fish harvesters at all, including those in the gallery today,
before moving forward with this system? Don't they believe, after all, that a
promise is a promise and should be kept?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right, those were my
words. We have said, when I met with the Inshore Council of the Union on
Thursday, three weeks ago yesterday, I guess it was, and when I met with the
industrial council of the union probably a week ago or two weeks ago - I cannot
remember exactly when it was now. Anyway, on both occasions, Mr. Speaker, I
indicated to the leadership of the FFAW, as I have in this House, that we are
prepared to sit down with those people to try and address their concerns in
moving forward with this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, we have put a lot of consideration into this matter. We had very
extensive Cabinet discussions on this matter. This is a government decision to
move forward with this proposal and this model. But, Mr. Speaker, as I said
before, and I will say it here again today, we have no problem sitting down with
the leadership of the FFAW to try and address their concerns as we move forward
with this proposal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I want to advise visitors in the gallery that we certainly appreciate your
attendance in the public galleries. However, we do wish to advise them that they
are not to participate in any way or to demonstrate approval for or against
anything that is said or occurs on the floor of the House. I ask them to respect
the long standing parliamentary traditions of their right to be here and their
right to listen to what is being said but not to interfere in any direct way.
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is unfortunate the consultation that the minister even talked about in his
own annual report that he would develop in consultation with the industry, that
he decided to consult with the processors before he made his announcement and
now he is willing to maybe talk to the other key stakeholders after.
Mr. Speaker, this final question. This is the time of the year when
negotiations for the price of crab would normally be starting or ongoing. Why is
it, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and the minister, acting as negotiators on
behalf of the processors, so it seems, are trying to create lower price
expectations for harvesters by eliminating competition with this system that
they are going to try and force down people's throats and talking publicly
about issues without substantiation, like poor quality reported at the Boston
Seafood Show?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just because the Leader of the Opposition says so, does not mean
that it is true. There were no meetings with processors in the development of
this approach for Raw Material Sharing. There was one meeting back in the middle
of January where processors said that they would like to see Raw Material
Sharing but if they did not have it, let them know, and they would do whatever
they had to do.
Mr. Speaker, we decided that we were going to go forward with Raw Material
Sharing. We told them at that time that we would not give them an answer until
some time later in the winter. We said that we would consider the matters. I
developed, and our department developed, a very comprehensive background paper
for Cabinet, brought it to Cabinet and laid out the options for this season and
for going forward. And, no, Mr. Speaker, we did not meet with either side prior
to the announcement on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, as for the Leader of the Opposition talking about quality
problems at the Boston Seafood Show, yes, there were quality problems identified
at the Boston Seafood Show and there were pictures that were provided to me by
people in the market late last fall. If people want to look at them (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, I say to people who are in the gallery, that we certainly appreciate
you being here, it is your right to be here, this is the people's House.
However, again I have to remind you that we ask you for your co-operation. You
are not to participate, show approval or disapproval. If the disturbances
continue you will leave the Speaker with no alternative but to do what many
other Speakers have had to do in the past. In other words, I will have to ask
people to leave the galleries, and I do not want to do that. So, please, I ask
you again for your co-operation so that Question Period can continue.
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions, too, are for the Minister of Fisheries. We just heard the
minister say that the only people he consulted with on this very important issue
was the Premier and his Cabinet and nobody else.
Mr. Speaker, last week in an attempt to present a case for giving processors
production quotas in this Province, the minister told the House that two major
buyers in the United States were threatening not to purchase crab from this
Province because of its inferior quality. The minister should realize that the
quality of crab being exported from this Province is the responsibility of the
processors and the government of this Province and not to be blamed on the
harvesters. As processors of this Province purchase, process, package and stamp
their names on each box of crab that is exported into the United States, it is
not difficult to ascertain who is shipping out the inferior quality crab.
I ask the minister, what has he done with the company or companies that are
jeopardizing this very lucrative crab fishery?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The specific company that was identify to us last fall has been dealt with,
Mr. Speaker. We dealt with the people who the allegations were made against. We
wrote the company that was involved. We laid the allegation in front of them,
and we dealt with it. It was done by a very major retailer in the United States
who provided us with pictures and a letter and concerns about the quality of
some crab going out of the Province. I never said once that there was a problem
with all of the crab that was going out of this Province. Mr. Speaker, there are
problems.
As for the harvesters, in rolling out the raw material sharing piece, we have
proposed to try and address the fundamental problems that have been in the
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. We will make it a requirement of
processors to disclose sales invoices so that people actually know what our crab
is fetching in the marketplace, not like we have seen in the past when people do
not know what our crab is actually getting in the marketplace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I never asked you what you said to the processors last fall. I asked you what
you said to them since you came back from Boston.
When asked in the House of Assembly why he would not force FPI to process
part of its fish quotas in Harbour Breton, the minister indicated he could not
because quotas were given by the federal government. In fact - and I quote from
Hansard - this what he said: The matter of quota allocations and the movement of
quotas is a federal responsibility.
Under the new production quota scheme the minister is legislating,
independent harvesters who have been given their quotas by the federal
government will not have any control over where they can sell it. In other
words, they have no control over the movement.
I ask the minister: Why is he protecting the rights of large fish processors
like FPI by taking away the rights of independent fish harvesters like those in
the gallery today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like for the Member for Twillingate & Fogo to stop
talking out of both sides of his mouth. Which does he want? Does he want the
government to try and impose some kind of an arrangement where fish stays in
Harbour Breton? Does he want us to impose some kind of an arrangement where fish
stays in Fogo? What does he want?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, FPI owns the quotas as it relates to their South Coast
operations. If they want to go and haul that to Nova Scotia, there is little
that we can do to stop it, because he did not do a very good job when he was in
government in trying to get an undertaking from FPI to keep the fish here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, something that we are aggressively pursuing. If we
can get something like that, then maybe we can do something with it.
As we said to the people of Harbour Breton, we would support their endeavours
to try and get a quota for their community, but the member cannot stand one day
and say we should try and put fish in Harbour Breton and another day stand up
and say that we should not have raw material sharing in other communities in the
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell the minister, they did not close Harbour Breton under my watch.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my final question is for the Minister of Justice,
because I cannot get an answer out of the Minister of Fisheries.
I assume that the Minister of Fisheries consulted with you and your
department about the legalities of production quotas. Both you and the Minister
of Fisheries know that the processing of fish falls under provincial
jurisdiction, but the allocation and the movement of fish falls under federal
jurisdiction.
I ask the minister: What advice have you and your department given the
Minister of Fisheries about imposing what looks to be an illegal system on the
harvesters of this Province, and would you also table that advice?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in the course of putting this proposal, this
approach, together, we consulted extensively with the Department of Justice, and
I expect we got the same advice that he received when his Premier ordered my
deputy to sign an order for raw material shares of shrimp in the fall of 2001
with no consultation with the industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Last February 4, the minister stated - and I have his speaking notes here -
in relation to the raw material shares, that any proposal must demonstrate that
there are no substantial or reasonable objections for plant workers and
harvesters, and I will not consider any proposal that fails to deal with this
issue.
He repeated his promise in April and May, in letters to the fishermen's
union, to consult.
Why, Mr. Speaker, did this minister break his promise and unilaterally,
without consultation, do exactly what the processors wanted, giving them
production quotas, for what he calls the interest of stability?
Does he think that stability will be achieved by giving the processors what
they illegally shut down the fishery last year to get, and why has he chosen to
pass over power to the processors without any consultation and over the
objections of fish harvesters?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we did say that we would not entertain any proposal that did not
deal with reasonable and substantive objections of fish harvesters and fish
plant workers. That is why we have not received, that is why we have not taken,
a proposal from the processing sector, because we know their proposal would not
meet that test.
What we have developed is an approach that deals with the reasonable concerns
of harvesters as it relates to price, which is why we propose to amend the
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, which is why we propose to make it a
condition of licences that sales invoices be disclosed, which is why we have
said, on the plant workers' side, that there be no permanent transfers allowed
in the pilot project stage, which is why we have allocated, why we proposed, to
share the fish amongst plants and not amongst companies.
Mr. Speaker, those are the issues that we are trying to address. To do
otherwise, to leave it to the hands of the processors, is not something that we
were prepared to do, but the old system was not working. That is why, under
their watch, over 50 per cent of the crab industry is controlled by four
processors in this Province, and we think that is unacceptable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I appeal once more to all members of the House, and particularly to visitors
in the gallery, to respect the long-standing parliamentary traditions of this
House and all other Houses in the British parliamentary system. Members who are
visitors in the galleries are not to participate, show approval or disapproval.
This is my third warning, and I say to you that if we are going to have these
interruptions continue the Speaker will, at the next interruption, cause the
galleries to be cleared.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Price is not the only issue. We all know where this is going to lead, Mr.
Speaker, when processors start selling their shares and their quotas.
They say that Mussolini had a lot of stability in Italy before the Second
World War. He ran the trains on time. Will this minister acknowledge that the
only that he can have his way -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: - and the processors' way is to force it down the throats
of the fish harvesters? Doesn't he realize, Mr. Speaker, that his approach -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: - will lead to greater instability in the crab industry than
there has ever been before, and this time it will be caused by him and his
government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I have to inform hon. members that, in view of the difficulties that have
been experienced in the galleries, I will now suspend this sitting until the
security people and our Sergeant-at-Arms can advise me that this session can
continue.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
I wish to advise all hon. members we have about twelve minutes remaining in
Question Period. When we suspending the House, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi had posed a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and I
would give that minister the opportunity, or any member of the executive, to
reply at this time.
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, after twenty-five minutes - I have a good memory
but it is short - I sort of forget the question.
Anyway, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. There are legitimate concerns about
moving forward with a Raw Material Sharing system, and we understand that and we
share some of those concerns, but we have to move forward and do some of the
things that we are trying to do with restructuring the industry, to put caps in
place on corporate concentration, to deal with the Fishing Industry Collective
Bargaining Act, to make it harder for processors to close down operations
whenever they want to.
Mr. Speaker, that is the system that we had in the past, and we saw
communities before that were held at ransom, like the Community of Twillingate,
Mr. Speaker. We have seen this and we want to stop that type of approach. That
is what we are trying to do here.
I hear members opposite shouting today about all the injustice that is being
done. Well, where were they over the past ten years? Why don't they go out and
talk to some of the men on the decks of boats who have never seen a bonus
payment? Why don't they go out and talk to some of the men and women in
thirty-five footers who have never seen a bonus payment? Why don't they go out
and talk to some of the plant workers who receive less than $10,000 a year in
earned income? Then come back and tell us what the solution is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This Budget has been characterized as the budget of lost opportunities. Just
as this government had an opportunity to build the cancer clinic, improve health
and education, they also had an opportunity to do something significant about
poverty.
Mr. Speaker, this government is developing a reputation for dealing with real
crises as if they were merely public relation issues. They are in the second
year of their mandate and now they are going to study poverty. I ask the
minister, why doesn't she read some of the many studies and reports that have
already been done on poverty by volunteer groups and use the $200,000 to address
some of the serious problems that exist today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, to address the issues of poverty is a priority for
this government. We have put some money aside this year, $200,000, to develop a
strategy, not to study poverty. Mr. Speaker, we plan to work with the government
departments that have to deal with poverty, that would be: Health and Community
Services, HRLE, INTRD, and Education. Mr. Speaker, we also plan to collaborate
with our community stakeholders as well.
This government has made a commitment that we want to reduce poverty from
being the highest rate of poverty in ten years to being the lowest rate. Mr.
Speaker, in order to move forward we need an integrated approach. We need
baseline data, we need targets, we need measurable outcomes and, Mr. Speaker, to
think that we can do that without a comprehensive strategy flies in the face of
social policy and social policy analysis.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Minister, whether it is a study or a strategy, I say it is
all fluff and no stuff, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this government cut funding to the Kids Eat
Smart Program by 50 per cent and refuse to deal with the high milk prices. Yet,
they want us to believe the spin that they are concerned about poverty.
When is this government going to use the opportunity they have, because of
the improved fiscal situation, to address this real issue around poverty in this
Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member understands,
there is a difference between a study and a strategy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I also want to provide some further information
and some comment to the hon. member. He indicated that we gave $250,000 to Kids
Eat Smart. Mr. Speaker, last year we gave that organization $500,000. This year
when we dealt with Kids Eat Smart Foundation, we found out that they had a
budget of $899,000. They also have approximately three hundred thousand dollars
in corporate sponsors. They also provided information that at the end of their
fiscal year, on July 1, they will be running a surplus of $483,000. Mr. Speaker,
with their corporate sponsors, with their surplus and with our money, they can
continue the program.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear, when we reduced it by $250,000 we
took that other $250,000 and reprofiled' it into a program that will be
developed to address social inclusion so that children in poverty can take -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, you should explain that to the Member for Port de
Grave in the elevator some time or when all twelve of us are there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: The President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of
Municipalities said in a news release, and I quote: "The Speech from the
Throne identified the amount of debt facing municipalities as "one of my
government's greatest concerns." Yet this budget eliminates the municipal
debt relief program and communities can no longer access the Newfoundland and
Labrador Municipal Finance Corporation, making it more difficult, if not
impossible, for rural..." communities to make "...critical
infrastructure at reasonable rates." That is not mine, that is from the
President of the Federation, Herb Brett.
Minister, why have you dashed the expectations you raised in the Throne
Speech? What is the real future for rural municipalities in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I had a discussion yesterday. The Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs is not in today for absolutely a good reason, a
health reason. I think he has some kidney stones, to be honest with you, that
hit him last night. But, I had a chat with him on this matter a couple of days
ago. His feeling of the conversation that occurred or the statement that was
made, that it is absolutely incorrect. But, what I will do and what I will say
to the member, in view of the fact that the minister who is responsible for the
file, who has all of the intimate detail, I will have an undertaking to have
that assessed immediately and I will get it back to the member.
I do want to assure municipalities of the fact that, based upon the
conservation and the knowledge that I have of the issue, we believe that the
statement made is incorrect and we believe that municipalities, rural
municipalities, in particular, will not be negatively impacted by this Budget.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la
Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last year the minister reduced the Municipal Operating Grants for selected
municipalities in the Province. In the pre-Budget consultation process these
mayors in municipalities around the Province asked the government not to cancel
these cuts. Now we are finding out that the government did not listen to their
concerns and are again following through on further reduction in these MOGs
without giving them new revenue options.
Minister, why does this government continue to impose its will on
municipalities, who are experiencing financial difficulties, without their
consent or output?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is very clear, I mean municipalities and municipal leaders and the
Federation of Municipalities in last year's Budget - not this years but last
years - that government announced what a three-year plan would be in terms of
the Municipal Operating Grants. That was laid out there last year. There has
been no change to that. If the member has -
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I say to the members opposite, we sat and listened to
the questions that you asked, and did it today in this particular question
because they are important. If you want to interrupt, then that is your right to
interrupt, I suppose. But I do want to have the luxury to answer the question, I
say to the Leader of the Opposition, that was asked by his colleague, which is
an important issue to municipalities. Once the answer is given, whether you like
it or not, that is up to yourself, but it will be as forthright and as truthful
as it can be, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.
The fact of the matter is, to the Member for Fortune-Cape la Hune, that the
announcement that was made in last year's Budget, with respect to Municipal
Operating Grants, was announced. It was, certainly, told to everybody in the
Province. All the information was given to municipal leaders. It was discussed
with the Federation of Municipalities. It was discussed, and I understand
certainly brought up at the Federation of Municipalities provincial meeting. So
other than to say that, which I think is the most direct and forthright answer
to your question, that is what we laid out and at this point there has been no
change in that policy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have heard a lot this week about the conditions at the cancer clinic in
Grand Falls-Windsor. Mr. Speaker, I wrote the Minister of Health and Community
Services on February 16, to plead with him to reinstate twenty-four hour home
care for Mildred and Clovia Baker of Carbonear. They are in wheelchairs, they
are fed through feeding tubes, that require assistance breathing and cannot
perform most of the things that we take for granted.
Mr. Speaker, we have received calls and letters from family, friends and
church leaders who are gravely concerned for the well-being of these two very
special ladies due to government cuts.
Is saving money, Minister, more important than the health needs of these two
individuals? When will the minister show some compassion and reinstate their
twenty-four-hour home care? How many others are in the same situation, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has obviously described a personal set of
circumstances. From the description that he has referenced, obviously it is a
serious set of circumstances. In most cases, I will say that these guidelines
and the standards that are set are put in place by well-established principles,
by well-established guidelines that are often enforced by the local boards and
the local authorities.
If there is new information that the hon. member has in his possession, new
information that I am not aware of, I would be more than prepared to meet with
him to review the situation with officials and to find out whatever information
may be necessary.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, a final
supplementary.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister that I have shared all of this information with him,
with his officials and so on. I have been asked by the family of those two
ladies in particular to bring this issue to the House. This is desperation,
Minister, pure desperation.
A neighbour had to go over the other night and turn up the heat for them; the
ladies were cold. They could not do it themselves. A delivery package could not
be delivered with medical supplies; the pastor of their church had to go and let
them in.
I say, Minister, that is what this is all about. I have been handed from you
to the department, to the Department of Health and Community Services.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, time
for a brief reply.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, obviously this is a personal issue, clearly
a sensitive issue. I would be more than prepared to have my officials discuss
the details, as referenced by the hon. member. As I say, if there is information
that we are not privy to, or if there is information that may assist in further
addressing this issue, as the minister, I will be happy to ask my officials to
delve into this and to hopefully seek some solutions, or at least some
explanations. That commitment I can only give to the hon. member in response to
his question.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time assigned for Question Period has expired.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a point of order I raise from commentary in
Question Period, from an answer given by the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
I believe that we are here on an honour system, where we are supposed to tell
the truth. I can say, unequivocally, that the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, in suggesting that I, when I was Premier, gave a direct order to a
deputy minister to do something, has to be false; because he may be operating in
a Cabinet where their deputies and ministers get phone calls from the Premier's
office, I never did it in my life. My ministers ran their departments and, if
there was a decision or an action taken in a department, it was done by the
minister, out of respect. So, I would ask him either to verify that happened,
with some kind of proof other than him spreading those kinds of false
statements, or withdraw the statement.
MR. SPEAKER: Are there further speakers to the point of order?
The Chair has to rule that there is no point of order. There may be a
disagreement between hon. members as to the facts; however, there cannot be a
point of order in the procedural sense.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, this afternoon, in response to a
question from the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, made reference to certain
photographs, and he held them up and showed them to the audience. I wonder if
the minister would be so kind as to table, for all of us here, what he
referenced.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have no problem providing the photos that were sent to us by a very large
firm in the United States who are responsible for marketing a substantial
portion of the crab processed in Newfoundland and Labrador, over a complaint
they had about a quality issue related to crab that was produced by a certain
processor. I will note that the allegations were made and -
MR. GRIMES: Over a year ago.
MR. TAYLOR: It was not over a year ago, I say to the Leader of the
Opposition; it was in September or October.
Anyway, the photos are there and the photos speak for themselves. They
certainly confirm what I have said and what many have said in the industry about
some of the producers in this Province, about some of the crab that goes out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again I remind members, as I did a few days ago with another honorable
member, about using displays in the House. Even in Question Period, and in the
matter that we had today, again, we do not bring displays to the House, however
interesting that might be.
I would caution all hon. members and ask for their co-operation, that we not
bring displays in; however, the Chair will facilitate the tabling of the
document to which reference has been made.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise on a point of order, but it may be a point of clarification.
Surely if a minister comes into the House with pictures in his hand and says
that he has them, that is not a display in the sense that someone is trying to
show that they send a message. He is saying: I have photographs, and here they
are. The Opposition House Leader is merely asking, as we all do when someone
refers to a document, that it be tabled, and the minister has readily complied.
I just wonder if you would clarify that.
To me, there is a big distinction between a document, whether the document is
in pictorial form or not, and a display, which may be a message - sometimes
people have been objected to for having badges that cast aspersions on
government policy or whatever - that constitutes a display. It is perfectly
legitimate, in my view, for the minister to come here and say, there are
complaints about quality and I have pictures of them here, and then be asked to
table them in the perfectly orderly way in which he did.
I wonder was Your Honour using the opportunity to remind people that displays
themselves are not permitted, rather than indicate that this particular matter
was a display. Perhaps Your Honour could clarify that for us.
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for his inquiry.
The issue of displays has been dealt with a number of times in this House and
particularly in Ottawa where they have had quite a history. I can only tell you
that when an hon. member in the Ottawa House brought in a picture of a fish, and
one day brought in an actual fish, then it was held to be a display. When we
had, in this House, a member on this side who came up with the display of a
book, the Speaker here ruled that was a display.
To be consistent, and the Speaker tried to be consistent, today when the
member held up the particular picture and started showing it across the House,
the Speaker would have ruled that to be a display at that point. Acknowledging
you had it is one thing, holding it up and showing it makes it a display.
MR. E. BYRNE: To that point, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where we are left after that
explanation. All I am going to ask - and I am certainly not challenging the
Chair, but just for some clarification, not right away but when we do get back
from the Easter break. I do want to make it clear, from my understanding, that
the member was referring to a document. When ministers refer to a document in
the House, they are obligated to table it, if it is used to influence debate or
reference in debate. The Opposition House Leader asked could he table it, the
member said yes, and if that is a display of comradery in the House, then that
is the only display we really should be concerned about.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Government House Leader.
We will prepare a commentary on that and have it distributed to all members
for their benefit. I will also include some of the literature from other
jurisdictions as well.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board, and pursuant to
section 26.(5)(
a) of the Financial Administration Act, I
am tabling one Order-in-Council relating to a funding pre-commitment for the
2005-2006 fiscal year.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Rule 64.(3) of the Standing Orders provide that a member cannot have any more
than one private member's motion on the Order Paper at any given time.
The Member for Grand Bank currently has one there. She would like to seek
leave of the House to withdraw the one she has on the Standing Order paper so
that she might substitute it with another. I spoke to the Government House
Leader in this regard and he indicated that we would have consent from the
government in that regard.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Grand Bank have leave to withdraw
the resolution of a private member's motion for which notice has been given?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I can speak for the government side; I cannot
speak for anybody else. Yes, that is fine, Mr. Speaker.
MR. HARRIS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: I hear the Member for Signal Hill has consented, so
therefore the House has granted leave.
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, under Notices of Motion.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I formally withdraw my earlier private member's motion and substitute the
following:
WHEREAS there is a need on the Burin Peninsula for improved health care
services, in particular a CT scanner; and
WHEREAS current medical needs are not being met because of the lack of
adequate facilities and medical equipment; and
WHEREAS these needs were identified and brought forward to government by
medical professionals; and
WHEREAS government committed during the election to complete the health
facility in Grand Bank and address the health care needs of residents of the
Burin Peninsula; and
WHEREAS government had an opportunity in the Budget with a projected cash
surplus to address these needs, but chose not to fund any improvements to health
care services on the Burin Peninsula;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on government to
place a CT scanner on the Burin Peninsula and recommit to construction of the
health facility in Grand Bank in this fiscal year.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, in relation to
the raw material sharing system.
This petition, Mr. Speaker, comes from people involved in the industry from
within my District of Port de Grave, Coley's Point and Bay Roberts, also from
Admiral's Beach area, Conception Harbour and Harbour Main.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, after attending several meetings with the
fisherpeople, I have to say to the hon. House that harvesters have stated very
clearly that they have not been consulted with. Plant workers have stated the
same. If that has been the case, and I take them at their word, then I believe
that this process is not following what was in the Dunne report, because the
Dunne report stated very clearly that raw material sharing should be considered
if agreed to by harvesters and plant workers. Again, as mentioned here earlier
today, the minister agreed that he would attend meetings and see that this was
done.
The report also stated, Mr. Speaker, that the processors - what the Dunne
report found - saw no reason why this plan should not be implemented; however,
the plant workers and the harvesters expressed skepticism and distrust about the
matter.
If we go to the Dunne report, under the
section Difficulties with Raw
Material Shares, there were two headings there: Economic Efficiency Problems,
and Industry Structure Problems. I will just quote. It states, "These
include such matters as: changed regional concentrations of processing,
processing employment losses if consolidation occurs, increased pressure for
selective harvesting and misreporting, limiting the competition of raw material,
placing another layer of regulation on the industry and discontent with sharing
formulas and transfer provisions."
However, Mr. Speaker, we hear, through the people at the rallies and at the
meetings, that plant production quotas is not an option. I think we heard that
loud and clear here today. I believe, and I agree with them, that those people
have rights, and they believe in a free enterprise. The minister has stated on
several occasions that this process will bring certainty and stability to
harvesters and plant workers and also to the industry at large.
I say to the minister, there is nothing to be ashamed of, to bend under
pressure, because no doubt people think that this should be taken care of in
another manner. There should be consultation between all stakeholders. I
believe, Mr. Speaker, if this goes through, the fishers, the harvesters, are
going to be told when to fish, and even probably fishing in very difficult times
of the year, so it is going to make it very difficult for them, and more
dangerous, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, I want to call upon the Minister of Fisheries to do the
honorable thing, to return to the table with all of the stakeholders and bring
stability to the industry before he brings the industry to a total standstill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo,
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Tuesday, I presented a petition from harvesters and plant workers in
Harbour Main, in the Districts of Harbour Main-Whitbourne and Placentia &
St. Mary's, and today I am presenting a similar petition from my own
constituents in the District of Twillingate & Fogo.
Mr. Speaker, what the petition is about, the residents of that area are
asking that the government not implement production quotas until it is agreed
upon by the FFAW and the processors. Mr. Speaker, they are adamantly opposed -
both plant workers and harvesters in my district are opposed - to production
quotas for different reasons. I will get into those after, but they both agree
that the minister who had promised to consult with them, in a letter that was
sent to the president of this association or their union last spring around this
time, that he would consult with them before he implemented these, to go and
implement it without even discussing it with them, Mr. Speaker, they found very
disgusting.
They are certainly opposed to having something rammed down their throats
without ever being able to discuss it with the minister. The minister even
admitted here in the House of Assembly today that he did indeed write Mr.
McCurdy, the President of the FFAW, last year and told him that he would discuss
this with the plant workers and the fishermen around the Province, and that he
did not, in fact, have these discussions, and that the only people he did have
discussions with, Mr. Speaker, were the Premier of the Province and the Cabinet.
I would assume from that, that the people who are the back bench of that
government across the floor, obviously they were not aware of what the minister
was about to do, or they certainly were not consulted themselves, because I know
for a fact, Mr. Speaker, that there are those who are sitting opposite who are
opposed to production quotas. They always were opposed to production quotas.
I also know that some of them have met with fishermen and were told by these
members opposite that they would bring their concerns back to the House of
Assembly. I have not heard these members discuss their concerns in this House of
Assembly, and obviously they are not at all pleased that their members are not
representing them here in the House of Assembly.
Like so many other decisions that this government makes, they do it in the
secrecy between the Premier and the minister involved. Regardless of what
anybody else thinks, he pushes ahead. We saw that happen just last fall with
regard to the VON strike in Corner Brook, where the Premier decided,
unilaterally, that he was going to do something, even in opposition to what his
own minister was recommending, and as a result that minister was replaced.
Mr. Speaker, I am getting off the topic. I will give you the reasons why the
harvesters and the plant workers are opposed to this. The harvesters are opposed
to production quotas because they are firmly convinced that it will eliminate
competition among processors and have the effect of driving down prices that
they will receive for crab.
I challenge anyone in this House of Assembly, and I challenge any economist
in the Province, or in the country for that matter, to explain to the people in
the fishing industry how the elimination of competition will increase the prices
that are paid to fishermen. I challenge anyone here to get up and prove that I
am wrong in that, and prove to the people in this industry that is indeed the
case.
Mr. Speaker, I realize my time is up. I only have three minutes. I wish I had
thirty minutes, but I will rise again when the House resumes next week and
present many more of these petitions.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the employees who work at the
FPI fish plant in Fortune. I want to read the prayer of the petition because I
think it will put it in context. It says:
WHEREAS we, the undersigned, do not support the recent proposal for Fishery
Products International concerning the fish processing facility in Fortune; and
WHEREAS we, the workers, recently voted 92 per cent to return to work in hope
of continued employment; and
WHEREAS Fishery Products International is turning its back on the social
responsibility it has to rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS this provincial government has allowed Fishery Products International
to run the fishery without regard to the economic well-being of rural
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;
WHEREUPON we feel the provincial government of today should take a strong
look at stopping all raw materials from leaving our Province and have it
processed in plants in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by the employees who work at the FPI
plant in Fortune. These employees, in fact, live in nine different communities
in my district. I can tell you that the petition came about out of fear, fear
for the future of those nine communities, because we all know that, no matter
where you work, you return to your hometown and hopefully that is where you
spend your hard-earned money.
What we are finding today is that these employees really do not know what the
future holds. They really fear that if the government allows FPI to move forward
with its plan to sell off 40 per cent of its marketing division, that will end
up having a most devastating impact not only on the plant in Fortune but, as
well, on other FPI plants in the Province where they do producing, because they
are concerned that it is FPI's agenda to get out of processing any fish in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and I concur with them, Mr. Speaker.
I do know that there has been a concerned citizens committee formed. I met
with the executive of that committee last Friday in Fortune. They now have a
request in for a meeting with the Premier. They really want to hear from the
Premier and from the Minister of Fisheries what it is that they talked to FPI
about when it comes to allowing them the possibility of selling off that 40 per
cent of that marketing division. They want to know what the government is asking
for in return. What kind of commitments are you getting from FPI? If you agree
to allow FPI to do that, than what kind of commitments are you getting from FPI
for the plants and the people who work in them today? What does it mean for the
future of Fortune? What does it mean for the future of Marystown? We know where
Harbour Breton is and we are hoping, of course, that there will be a quota for
Harbour Breton because we see that is really the only future for that community
and that plant.
Fortune is still open. Open, I say, Mr. Speaker, in terms of having a limited
amount of work for the time being. Having said that, they really do not know
what the future holds. This petition, again, as I say, comes out of fear, comes
out of concern of not knowing what is going to happen to them, not knowing what
FPI's plans are, but wanting to know and looking for a meeting with the
Premier to find out in the meetings that he has had with the executive of FPI,
what exactly they have discussed about Fortune, about the future of the plant.
I know my time is cut short. I am asking, Mr. Speaker, just for one minute
maybe to clue up, if that is possible?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for Grand Bank have leave to make some
concluding statements?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave had been granted.
MS FOOTE: Thank you for that, because this is an issue of vital
importance to people who work in that fish plant from those nine communities.
I would, at this point in time, ask the Premier and ask the Minister of
Fisheries to seriously consider (inaudible) for a meeting so that the people of
Fortune, or the people who make up the executive of the concerned citizens
committee, can meet with the Premier and get some comfort in knowing that their
concerns will be addressed, that they are being looked out for and, at the end
of the day, they matter more than a corporation like FPI.
Thank you so much.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider
matters related to Interim Supply. I believe that is motion 1, Bill 2, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House resolve itself into
a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 2 and that I do now leave the Chair.
All those in agreement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against?
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Bill 2,
An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For
Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending
March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.
Shall the resolution carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against?
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have not had an opportunity to speak on this Interim Supply bill yet.
Yesterday we were debating Bill 3, which is Supplementary Supply, having to do
with the paying off of loans. I was speaking then, but I understand that the
Government House Leader has called the Interim Supply bill. I would be happy to
speak on that, Mr. Chairman. I know other members in the Official Opposition
have had an opportunity to do that, so I would like to take a few moments to
offer some comments on Interim Supply. I will proceed to do that.
Mr. Chairman, Interim Supply, of course, gives government the power to spend
money immediately upon March 31, because the Budget has not been passed.
Therefore, there is no authority to spend without special warrants, and these
are only intended to be for extraordinary emergencies. So, the legal situation,
Mr. Chairman, is that without an Interim Supply bill, as of March 31 the
government is not allowed to write any cheques, not allowed to spend any money
and needs the authority of this House. We will be giving authority for the
government to spend up to a quarter of the Budget between now and the end of
June, which is the traditional amount for each department.
Traditionally, in Interim Supply, people talk about the budgets and have an
opportunity to raise particular concerns about any issues that are obvious from
the Budget and from the decisions that are being made by government that are
announced in the Budget. Our take on the Budget, Mr. Chairman, was one that
seems to have been taken up by the Official Opposition in the last day or so,
that this was a Budget of missed opportunities. That was what I called it on
Budget Day in a release we sent out, because what we recognize, while there were
a number of positives in the Budget - and some of them have been expounded on by
the Member for St. John's Centre in a very good speech yesterday. He talked
about some of the positives in the Budget, and we recognize that there a number
of positives in this Budget.
The Member for Labrador West has clearly indicated to the government that
some of the spending choices that were made, particularly affecting the people
of Labrador who have been crying out, particularly members of Labrador West,
through the Member for Labrador West, for the last number of years for equality
in treatment with respect to medical expenses; travelling to Happy Valley-Goose
Bay to get medical services, or from all over Labrador travelling to the Island,
normally to St. John's, sometimes to Corner Brook, that they now have a much
more favourable medical expense program available to them as a result of new
monies that were received from the Health Care Accord and spent this way by the
provincial government. And we are certainly happy to see that some of our
concerns have been responded to.
When I say it is a Budget of missed opportunities, Mr. Chairman, what I see
is a very drastic difference from last year to this year. What I see is an
underestimation of the reality in terms of what the revenues are, perhaps an
underestimation by as much as $100 million to $150 million, some say $180
million, when you look at the actual value of oil resources in this Province and
the kind of money that is going to come forward. We had been off the mark pretty
early this year in the pre-Budget discussions when we were still hearing a
government say: Well, we got $2 billion from Ottawa but, you know, we owe $12
billion and that is really not very much. We are going to have to make sure we
pay off the debt, and those kinds of comments.
I was very concerned that this government was preparing for another bad-news
budget like they did last year, adding all sorts of new fees and charges,
increasing the cost to ordinary people and still continuing on the downward
spiral that they set in motion last January when they announced the significant
restraint. I did not want to see that happen, so what I did was basically start
talking about the fact that we were in a much more improved financial position,
that not only did we have, over the next eight years, the $2 billion in
additional monies that was coming, that would be coming from the offshore oil
resources as a result of the revised Atlantic Accord, but we were also going to
have oil revenues ramping up in a very steep manner over the next several years
to the extent that we would have, over the next five years alone, an average of
$800 million of new revenue that would be available to look after some of the
significant problems that we have but also to initiate new programs.
The missed opportunity was to look after some very straightforward problems
that had been identified for years by me and my party and by others in a certain
few areas: The missed opportunity to solve the issue of school fees that end up
putting a significant burden on struggling families; the issue of textbook costs
that we in this Province pay for, but Margaret Wente and her friends in the land
of plenty in Ontario do not pay and have not paid for some time.
We have the means to do that, and we should end that kind of discrimination
against poor people who cannot afford to pay for those textbook costs. We have
the scandal of collection agencies out after individuals, after families, to try
and collect that money. I have heard it said that they are out there reminding
people. I do not know if anybody in this House has had any dealings with
collection agencies, but I have not seen one yet - and I have had some dealings
with them over my twenty-five years in the legal profession, on behalf of
clients - I have not seen a collection agency yet that is out there sending
reminders out to people, a gentle reminder: Oh, by the way, you did not pay this
bill.
What I have seen is a lot of things often disguised as if they were legal
documents, threatening people with court, telling people about garnishees,
suggesting to them that if they do not pay up that there could be court action
pretty soon, and frightening and intimidating people who come to me, as their
lawyer, and others in this House who would have dealings with it. I am sure MHAs,
in their work, see the consequences of that.
I am not suggesting that every work of every collection agency is not
legitimate, but I think it is a scandal that we have schools and school boards
resort to this type of collection for something that should not even be there in
the first place. That could have been fixed. We could have fixed the issue of
school fees. We could have fixed the issue of textbook costs. We could have
fixed the issue of a full universal school meal program for each student in the
Province. All of that could be done for a reasonably modest expenditure, but it
would take some substantial political will on the part of this government.
I have some encouragement. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I heard the Minister
of Human Resources and Employment today, in answer to a question from the Member
of Port de Grave, when she talked about a poverty strategy - I have to
acknowledge this - I have a hint, and I am going to ask her some more about this
and maybe she can answer if she wants to speak today, if what this government is
suggesting is that the poverty strategy that she is talking about is going to
set targets and goals for the elimination of poverty. If that is what she is
suggesting, and she gave a hint of that today, Mr. Chairman, in her answer, if
that is what this government is prepared to do, I would be very interested in
seeing them do that, Mr. Chairman, and make that kind of commitment; because
what we do need, if we are going to eliminate poverty in this Province, we do
need the same kind of commitment, targets, timetables and goals that governments
tend to get involved in when they are talking about reducing deficit.
When the Minister of Finance said to the people of this Province, and the
government said to the people of this Province when they were running for
election, that we were going to eliminate the cash deficit in our first term of
office in four years, that was a target, that was a goal. I want to hear this
government say that we are prepared to eliminate child poverty in this Province
by a specific date, and have just as vigorous a program to do that as the
minister and his government seem to bring down here in this Province on the
issue of the cash deficit.
We have seen, Mr. Chairman, that, in fact, in year one the cash deficit has
been eliminated. How was that done, not in four years but in year one? It was
done by last year telling people how desperate things were, how terrible they
were, how we had to increase enormous numbers of fees that ordinary people pay
for motor registration. Fees for everything from a dog tag to a hunting licence
all added up to increase the cost to ordinary people, regardless of their
ability to pay or their wealth, increasing those fees on ordinary people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We saw all of that, Mr. Chairman, because this government was committed to
reducing the cash deficit, which they have done in one year. In one year the
cash deficit, which last year they projected at $362 million, turned out to be
zero. In fact, there turned out to be a surplus of $103 million that they felt
able to pay down on a minor part of our $6.5 billion direct government debt.
That is the kind of hardship that was imposed on people, Mr. Chairman.
We now have a situation where the cash deficit has been eliminated. The
projection of $62 million for next year is not going to be there, Mr. Chairman.
That is my prediction. That is easily verifiable if one examines the price of
oil that is used by this minister for his calculations, and the actual price of
oil that we are going to see over the next number of months.
That $62 million -
CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has lapsed.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, on a point of order, I
would like to ask the House Leader: This is the Interim Supply Bill, which is
basically the one that gives the government permission and consent to continue
paying the bills next week, to continue running the government, and we have
spoken on this side. We are in full agreement, I can say. I cannot speak for the
Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but for this caucus we will vote for it and
we are willing to vote for it right now without further debate.
There is another money bill that is also going to be voted on before the end
of the day and, to facilitate business, we are agreeable to end debate on this
right now, vote for it, unanimous on this side, for our caucus, I can tell you,
and then let the House Leader call the other money bill, debate it until time
runs out, when His Honour comes, and we will have the vote at that time. If that
is agreeable with the House Leader, we are glad to end this debate and vote for
this bill right now.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, with every offer like that from the Leader of
the Opposition, any past Government House Leader would advise me today: Now be
very, very careful in what you are about to say here right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I have been around twelve years in the House and I have
seen some offers like that before. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, I have made a
couple when I was over there.
Look, fair enough, we will move on to the next bill; but one of the things
with any Finance bill, whether it is Interim Supply or Supplementary Supply or
any Finance bill, it allows you to talk about whatever you want to talk about.
It is very much latitude. Knowing why the offer was made - and I think that will
become very clear in due course - I accept the Leader of the Opposition's
offer to pass this bill immediately, and then we will move on to have a
discussion about The Rooms, I suppose, and a few other matters.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To that point of order, I am certainly prepared to acknowledge that I am
satisfied to have this bill voted on, but I will say I will not be voting in
favour of it. The Leader of the Opposition may be, but I will not be voting in
favour of it. I am satisfied to have the vote come to the floor, Mr. Chairman,
but, given the Budget that this government has brought down, and the things that
they failed to take advantage of, I am not prepared to vote in favour of it.
CHAIR: There is certainly no point of order, but it is the enabling of
the House to proceed in looking after its business, so I call the passage of the
bill.
Resolution
"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting
to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the
financial year ending March 31, 2006 a sum of $1,446,010,500."
CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
The resolution is carried.
On motion, resolution carried.
CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.
On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.
CLERK: Clause 3.
CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Clause 3 is carried.
On motion, clause 3 carried.
CLERK: The schedule.
CHAIR: Shall the
schedule carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
The
schedule is carried.
On motion,
schedule carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened, as follows:
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
The enacting clause is carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray
certain expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the
financial year ending March 31, 2006 and for other purposes relating to the
public service.
CHAIR: Shall the
preamble carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
The
preamble is carried.
On motion,
preamble carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money
For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year
Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.
CHAIR: Shall I report the title carried?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
The title is carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 2,
An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain
Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The
Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The
Public Service, carried without amendment?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Bill 2 is carried.
A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For
Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending
March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service."
(Bill 2)
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to be in a position to announce right now that I do not need
Bill 3 and I could say call in the Lieutenant Governor, but I am not in that
position, unfortunately. Let me tell you, from a parliamentary point of view, it
did cross my mind.
Mr. Chair, with that, I move motion 2, that we begin debate on granting
Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 3.
CHAIR: Bill 3.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Just on a point of order before we recommence the debate.
CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just would point out again for the Government House Leader that, in fact,
if that is his wish, that can be done because all we would have to do is agree
to an amendment to this Bill 3, to add a clause when we come back after Easter
to say it is retroactive to March 31. I understand the government does not
particularly like to do, or want to do, retroactive legislation but there is
nothing in the rules, as I understand it, Mr. Chair, that would make that any
less binding than if we pass it today. I know that is not their desire. They
want to pass it today and they will use their majority to make that happen today
but, technically, and I am sure we could ask the Chair to look at it, that if
they wanted to leave this debate right now, come back on April 11, resume the
debate on the particular bill and put in another clause, clause 3, saying this
bill will be effective as of March 31, 2005, it would have the exact same legal
binding effect as if we debated it and passed it today.
So, I make that suggestion and offer again, if he is anxious to get his
Lieutenant Governor in so he can commence Easter festivities a bit earlier.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are not anxious to get out of the House, as such. I mean, we are anxious
to get the legislation that we have before us passed. The fact of the matter is,
while I appreciate the offer from the Leader of the Opposition, we have been
advised, based on our own officials, that this is a piece of legislation that we
should not pass retroactively, that we have no intentions of passing
retroactively. The form and content of this particular piece of legislation, and
the money and the issues that are at hand with the legislation, must be dealt
with between now and March 31. While I appreciate the offer from the Leader of
the Opposition, it is one I am not in a position to take because, if I were to
do so, the bill itself would become null and void.
CHAIR: Order, please!
To this point of order, I say to the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi-Vidi?
MR. HARRIS: No, I have a new point of order.
CHAIR: There is certainly no point of order in the last point raised by
the Leader of the Opposition.
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Chair.
I see the Minister of Finance standing in his place. My point of order is
that I adjourned debate on this matter yesterday and I understand that would
permit me to continue debating this matter in the first instance.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chair, that the member did
adjourn debate. No, the Minister of Finance wants to speak to this. He has some
other obligation he needs to get to. So, we have the rest of the afternoon. If
that is okay with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi -
MR. HARRIS: Sure.
MR. E. BYRNE: - to allow the Minister of Finance to speak to his bill, he
can move on and continue to do his duty on behalf of the Province and then we
will have an opportunity, like yourself, you can speak shortly thereafter if
that is amenable to yourself?
CHAIR: Order, please!
It is my understanding, in conferring with the Table, that in Committee stage
the speech is not carried over from one day to the next day. Every member has an
opportunity to stand as often as they want in order to speak to the bill, ten
minutes at a time. The first two speakers have fifteen minutes. When the debate
is over, there is no carry forward of time to begin the debate on another day.
MR. HARRIS: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to the point of
order.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate what the Chair has said in relation to the rules. I was on my
feet, actually, to indicate, in response to the Government House Leader's
comments, that I would be quite happy to accommodate the Minister of Finance who
has another appointment. Even if I did have the authority to carry on, I am
quite willing to allow the minister to tend to government business and make his
speech and presentation.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased with their willingness and cooperation in allowing me to speak.
Even if it is not a part of legislative right in this instance, I do appreciate
the intent.
I just want to speak very briefly on this issue. In particular, just to
inform the House that there is a certain procedure followed at the end of a
fiscal year. This issue has been raised and I have commented on it before, and
have been asked in Question Period. When a fiscal year ends, whether you have a
surplus or a deficit - if you have a surplus of $103 million when the year ends,
or $110 million or $130 million or $50 million, whatever it is, when the fiscal
year ends that surplus automatically gets applied to the debt of our Province.
You can't say, in March, take that $117 million and pay it for, whether it is
for health care, for education, or for anything, unless you can expend it by the
end of March. Otherwise, we would be violating the Financial Administration Act.
We cannot flow money through to departments at the end of March, even if
there is a surplus, for them to spend, unless they can spend it by the end of
March. If it is over and above the appropriation in the Budget for that purpose,
we would have to bring a bill to this House to add that as an expenditure too,
and it would have to be able to be expended.
That is why this bill is here, so the money would flow to those corporations,
retire the debt for all school construction out there in the Province, and for
The Rooms which is under the Heritage Corporation. Even if we could flow it out
to the Department of Health to spend, they would have to be able to spend it by
the end of March. How are they going to spend $117 million in a week or two?
We have to struggle to find ways to spend the Health Accord money. The Health
Accord money came from Ottawa. In fact, we have to carry over that and spend it
into 2005-2006 because there was a provision to allow medical equipment orders
to be spread over more than one year. We looked at a plan over the six years to
flow all of the Health Accord money through and spend that money that we are
getting from Ottawa. We could not spend medical equipment. We did not even get
the money. Up until last week we did not have that Health Accord money that was
approved last September. We did not have it last week. We spent money in the
Budget because we had anticipated getting it by the end of March, which we are
getting, but it is within the envelope of expenditures that we had allowed, and
within the Budget. We knew we were getting it, and therefore the provision to be
able to do that. That was a special fund to allow it.
The new monies we carried, even though we probably have it today, maybe we do
not, but before the end of March we will have it, if we did not get it in the
last couple of days, that money that was announced last September.
Some provinces that might have had surpluses in their departments, you could
spend money that is appropriated and approved within your departments. If you
have a budget in your department for $200 million, and you have slack within
that $200 million, $190 million, and you might save $10 million on an idea, you
can spend that other $10 million for an area by changing from one subhead to
another, but you cannot take money from one Department of Education and put it
over in Health if you are coming in under budget in one department and over in
another. You have to come back to this House if you are going to over-expend
your appropriations that were approved, and get approval from this House in a
Supplementary Supply Bill; or, you can go out, if you think it is urgent, and a
minister of the department who is responsible feels it is urgent, and have a
special warrant if the House is not sitting.
We have avoided doing that, Mr. Chair. The only special warrant we brought to
this session of this House was, we were told that by March 10, if they did not
have the money, the doctors and them could not get paid, and associated money
for physicians' salaries. The House was not open. That is the only special
warrant that we brought, and we followed that up with a Supplementary Supply
Bill. We gave notice to get proper approval in the House.
We took over government back in the fall of 2003, and in the spring session
in 2004 we had to deal with Supplementary Supply Bills back to 2002-2003. I am
not sure if there was one from 2001-2002, but certainly 2002-2003. In fact, in
2001-2002 there were Supplementary Supply Bills submitted that were not passed
in the year 2001-2002, and we had to deal with all of these.
We are following the proper procedures and complying with the Financial
Administration Act. Even if we did not spend the money on those two initiatives,
it would collapse, it would go as a surplus, it would go into that and it would
have retired debt in the Province. We choose to retire these two debts for the
simple reason, because the Province had an extra set of books; they had books
under municipal financing, they had books under the EIC and the Heritage
Corporation that moved money off balance, off the balance sheets into a
corporation that distorted the cash balance of the Province.
We said, over a year ago, we said before we took office, we said after we
took office, we are going to eliminate three sets of books and we are getting
rid of that. All money in our Budget this year for school construction goes out
of the Department of Education. All money for health facilities will go out of
the health care budget. Money for municipal financing this year, instead of
going out of the Municipal Financing Corporation, a separate entity last year,
$30 million, is going out of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
That is where the expenditure is going. We have eliminated that layer in the
bureaucracy there. We have pulled it out because we have said we do not want -
and it was used before - to put money, flow it out and keep it and show you have
a different cash balance than you really have. We could have said a surplus of -
and I have never denied it - $103 million; then it would go to debt in our
Province.
We have debt not coming due now. We have no debt coming due. We have $494
million in Treasury bills, that the debt, where it is costing us about 2.5 per
cent, this is more. If you retire Treasury bills, it was cheaper to retire this
than Treasury bills.
Longer-term debt, we just got $378 million from the federal government,
interest-free for ten years. We have a cash flow - and a lot of our borrowings
are not coming up next year. Look at the Budget on the back, how much new
borrowings are coming up next year. Only $100 million, and it is not coming up
until some time next fall. We do not have any debt that is coming due. By
eliminating this, we were saving money between the interest on Treasury bills
and retiring this debt as opposed to waiting several months. If we deposited it
and sat on it, we would not get the interest rate on it. Therefore, we saved
money in the process. That gives the fiscal freedom, a little bit of flexibility
there, to manage it. We are managing our debt and looking at it in the best
manner possible to maximize return and allow this money. That is why that
happened.
It was a good question that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi asked. It
was a good question he asked, because we did have - the debt in those areas was
not high. It was the floating rate, and it was a fairly low rate, but the
T-bills were lower. If we had to do a big borrowing program coming up now, it
would be advisable to do that, but we did our borrowing back last year, and for
the previous year. We did $600 million worth of borrowing by September and into
last June - $600 million - so that borrowing, with the improved financial
position on oil royalties, our deal with Ottawa, our extra $130 million that we
got in increased royalties, put us in a cash position where we had flexibility,
we do not have to go to the market.
We are proud we do not have to go to the market, and we are proud to reduce
that. That was the best and most fiscally responsible decision we could make.
Had we been able to do it in some other way to be able to do that, we would have
done that. That is why that happened. I think anybody looking at it prudently,
and the bottom line of this Province, would make exactly the same decision. If
you let it collapse, you would end up doing that anyway, so why wouldn't we do
what we said we were going to do? We said it up front. We said it before we took
over government, and I said it from day one. I am on the public record on this
on numerous occasions.
I was on the West Coast of the Province yesterday and I did hear the Leader
of the Opposition make a statement, I think it was in Question Period, or I
heard him speak in the House, on an issue of out-migration. He said: 2,000
people less in this Province since this government took over.
Well, I would like to put it in perspective. There are about 66,000 less
people in this Province from the time the Leader of the Opposition came here
until he went out of power, and for the last quarter of this year, right up
until now - I have the figures - the quarter from October to January, from the
period October 1, 2004 up to January, we have gained 111 people more in our
Province in the last quarter than there were. We had a gain of population in the
last quarter. That came from migration.
Even though there was a reduction in natural population, the net was still
111, which meant that more people have come into this Province in the last
quarter than have gone out, by more than 111. I did not get the specific
breakdown on births versus deaths, on that figure, but that is positive. It is
nothing to get excited about, 100-and-some people change in a quarter, but it is
better than losing population.
We hope more will come back, because our unemployment rate this last year was
at the lowest in fifteen years. It went from 16.4 per cent to 15.6 per cent, the
lowest unemployment in fifteen years. We are projecting that the unemployment
rate is going to go down to 15.1 per cent, and that is even lower again next
year. While this is happening, our workforce is going up. The labour force is
going up and our rate is coming down, which is a good news story for our
Province.
They are very important figures, when you look at it. It is important to see
the whole picture, not to take a segment of it and put it out there and give
people the wrong impression.
This bill is put in for a simple reason: It is the most efficient way to deal
with it. It is the most cost-effective, that puts the most money in the pockets
of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and it fulfills the commitment of getting
rid of three sets of books in our Province, being open, transparent and
accountable, and these Budget documents reflect that openness, transparency and
accountability. We said it from day one. I was asked in a media scrum. We put it
into the Budget Speech. We did not hide it. We answered the questions truthfully
and they are there in this.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that
his time has lapsed.
MR. SULLIVAN: If I could have just one minute to finish, if I could.
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?.
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. SULLIVAN: If I could just have one minute to finish before -
MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) a question and (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Sure. If I could have just one minute to finish and then I
will take a break -
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
CHAIR: By leave.
MR. SULLIVAN: - the member before -
CHAIR: The hon. minister, by leave.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I just wanted to add one other statement overall on
the fiscal situation here. In this upcoming year, and you look back at our
predictions on our revenues, there is one area of revenue in this Budget that I
feel there could be a positive upside, and I have said it, that is on the price
of oil.
Our experts told the Natural Resources Department, the independent people out
there, that we should factor in $37.l3 a barrel. We have looked at numerous
other institutions of long term in their figures, was on the same range. We said
we feel it should go higher. We put in $38. When people look at the price of oil
at $56, that is West Texas intermediate. Now, Brent is close to that now. Brent
oil is within a dollar of that now. There is often a discrepancy of $3 and $4 in
those prices.
Thirdly, the price we get is close to Brent but below Brent. There is often a
variation from West Texas intermediate to our oil from $5 to $6 a barrel. At the
current rate, that could possibly move us significantly below. So our revenues,
on the downside - we are optimistic. It could stay up. There are negative
impacts in the economy when it does stay up, on business wise and extra costs,
but it is an area that we feel there is an upside to. We will say it up-front if
possible, but we were not going to put the farm on the bet that oil would stay
up because last year it went up from $30 a barrel, the low $30s there, right up
to $50-something a barrel in a matter of months and we did not want to hang the
farm on it staying up there because we do not know if it will go down. Experts
are giving us long-term things. We did not do it on our own initiative. We went
beyond what consultants and experts have told us on this issue and that is the
reason for it. I just hope we do have another $100 million or $150 million next
year over and above what we expect. I think it would be a good news story,
nothing to be ashamed of.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Minister of Finance acknowledged that he would entertain a question
before he leaves. I listened to his explanation as to why they did this amount
and his talk about one set of books. I wonder if he could tell us - I am looking
at Exhibit V to the Budget, to the estimates document, which does set out the
Public Sector Debt there and has a couple of categories, one of which is the
Provincial Direct Debt where Treasury Board bills and various debentures are
shown. Then there is another category called Crown Corporation and Other Debt,
which has Utility, Housing, Municipal, Student Loans and Other categories there.
I wonder, could the minister indicate whether any of these categories will be
reduced by $117 million as a result of the payment of this $117 million of what
appears to be Crown corporation debt, or is the figure that is shown here
inclusive of this reduction of $117 million?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: The $117 million would reflect the net of that amount. That
amount is plugged into the Budget, the $117 million. So, any final amount, that
is considered in our bottom line.
If you look at whether we have it on a cash basis or whether we pay it off,
it is still there. Cash is an asset, if you pay it off it is a reduction of
debt. The same net effect would be - I am not sure if that is the question he is
asking.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, because Crown corporations, many of them out there
have debt. We only record on the books of our Province the net income from those
government corporations. Hydro, for example, the Liquor Corporation, would just
show their net basic business income on the lines of the books of our Province.
We do not carry on our cash flows all their revenues and assets on a
consolidated statement. We would just carry the net amount.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps, for the Minister of Finance, if I could rephrase it. I guess my
question is, given the fact that both of these entities are Crown corporations,
the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Corporation capital and the Newfoundland
and Labrador Education Investment Corporation capital, that these are Crown
corporations, would have they been included, for example, in 2004 as a part of
what is listed here as Crown corporation and other debt in the Budget exhibits
which deal with the public sector debt? The categories are direct debt, Crown
corporation and other debt, and then they have Sinking Funds and it is netted
out to give us the bottom line here.
I am looking at Exhibit V of the Estimates, attached to the Estimates. The
question I guess is, would that be included in one of those numbers there, the
$117 million that is being paid off, would that be included as part of the
$2,751,000,000 that is listed as the total for the five years ending March 31 in
2004, would that $117 million appear there? Is that reducing the Crown
corporation and other debt by $117 million?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the answer to that, my understanding, I will make
sure, but I feel it is a separate entity that is flowed out. That is a Crown
corporation that reflects here, the same as we set up the Student Loan
Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is reflected. So, that would end
up having the reduction of that amount on that line, yes, as opposed to showing
on a cash side. I think that is where he is coming from.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the minister for his answers. I was certainly interested in hearing
what he had to say because it was also my understanding that this money, this
$117 million that is being paid off as a result of this bill or being proposed
to be paid off before March 31 is, in fact, part of the Public Sector Debt that
the public is notified of, the members of the House, in our Budget documents
which shows, as of the end of 2005, the projections of the Public Sector Debt in
terms of total Crown Corporation and Other Debt to be $2.65 million,
approximately $100 million less than this time last year. That certainly seems
to indicate that the current debt, as of March 31 of this year, will be about
$100 million less on the Crown corporation side, presumably - partially, at
least - as a result of this payment here.
Part of the reason I asked that question is, it seems to fly in the face of
the argument that the minister has been giving about one set of books, or two
sets of books, or three sets of books. It seems that no matter whether the debt
is incurred by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, or by a municipality and
guaranteed by the government, or by the government directly, it is included on
the set of the books that the government has and it is listed as part of the
public debt of the Province, which the direct debt listed here and the Crown
corporation debt is estimated to be $8.5 billion. Eight point five billion
dollars, that is the number that is listed here as the Public Sector Debt that
includes the government's debt and Crown corporations. Now, we often hear
numbers like $12 billion, $11 billion, sometimes we hear $13 billion and $14
billion, but if you look Exhibit V of the Public Sector Debt, we have $8.5
billion.
What I want to talk to you about in my few minutes, at least this first few
minutes, is about the nature of that debt and the fact that we were given last
year, starting last January 4 or 5, all kinds of information about the dire
straits we are in, and how terrible life was going to be for Newfoundland and
Labrador if superhuman effort was not undertaken by this government to resolve
some of these problems. So, I took the opportunity to have a look at one of the
things that was talked about in the early part of last year. I heard the
Minister of Finance and the Premier talk about how we had to put $1 billion a
year towards our debt, how terrible it was, $1 billion a year towards the
interest alone, before we could do anything.
Mr. Chairman, I kind of had a look. I thought that was a preposterous figure,
and I also thought that we did not really seem to be going way overboard
automatically or quickly with the public debt, and in fact my analysis seemed to
think that the public debt was not really rising higher than the rate of
inflation over the last ten years. My analysis and my research bore that out.
I went another step and said: Well, one of the things when you are trying to
figure out how bad is your debt, how bad is your personal debt, how bad is your
personal credit, how bad is the government's credit, you kind of find out how
much am I paying on this debt. What is my interest payment? What is my mortgage
payment?
Well, if you look at the history of the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador over the last ten or fifteen years, you will see that every year the
government puts out a document that is attached to the Budget, that is part of
the Budget documents, it is in the back of the Budget Speech, in the back of
this document here. I do not know if I am allowed to display the Budget or not,
but here it is. Every word of it was read out the other day, so I guess I am not
really doing anything bad. I can table it. I do not have a problem tabling it,
but it is an exhibit. It is called Exhibit VII, and it is kind of a
summary of
where the money goes. Where the money goes - that is what it is called. There is
even a pie chart so anybody - I could show you that, too, but I am not allowed.
There is a pie chart there in the document, and the pie chart divides it all up.
There is also a table underneath it, so it spells it out in detail as well.
Anybody who wants to look at this on the government Web site, they can click on
Budget documents and find this chart. It tells you want percentage of government
expenditures are spent on various things. So, if you wanted to know how much are
we paying - I see the very avid interest of the former Auditor General here -
how much are we paying in interest and debt charges? What percentage of our
money? How much of every dollar do we have to spend to support the public debt?
Anyone want to guess?
AN HON. MEMBER: Eighteen cents.
MR. HARRIS: The member says eighteen cents. Well, maybe it used to be
eighteen cents one time, but it has not been eighteen cents since before 1989.
My research only goes back that far. What it actually is, according to Budget
2005, 11.6 cents of every dollar in expenditure goes toward the public debt.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is what it was when we took over from the Tories.
MR. HARRIS: No, it was more than that. It was more than that when the
Liberals took over from the Tories in 1989and I can take you back each and every
year. I have them all here, Mr. Chair. You know something about these Budgets?
They seem to be all consistent, there is a consistency here. Every single Budget
going back at least to 1989, Mr. Chairman, had an Exhibit VII, and each and
every Budget told the public what percentage of government expenditures was
going to pay debt and other charges, each and every year, Mr. Chairman.
My figures go back to 1989. This was when the Tories were defeated in 1989
and the Liberals of the day, under then Premier Clyde Wells, took over. They
talked about what they inherited in debt, and all that.
Actually, in 1989, the actual figures for the percent of expenditures that
went on the public debt, for each dollar spent,16.2 cents. That continued
throughout most of the 1990s, Mr. Chairman. It was16.2 cents,16.3 cents,15.5
cents in 1992, a good year, I guess, I do not know. In 1993 it was16 cents. It
remained 16 cents up until 1998 when we got to15.9 cents; in 1999,15.9 cents; in
2000,15.9 cents; in 2001 it was down to15.1 cents; in 2002, 14.4 cents; in 2003,
the last year that the Liberals were in power, 14.4 cents.
What has happened, actually, Mr. Chairman, for the period 1989 to 2003 -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Hold on.
From 1989 to 2003, the average was 15.7 cents, going back for the entire
regime of the Liberal Party. After that, Mr. Chairman, for 2004, and now
projected to 2005 - because I do not think we can give 2003, we cannot blame
that on them, that was part of their debt - the year ending 2004 and the year
ending 2005, 11.7 cents and 11.6 cents.
My point is this, Mr. Chairman: Are things getting worse? Are we, as the
Premier said, wallowing in debt down here - wherever down here is. That is what
the Premier has said to the national media, that we are wallowing in debt down
here, and yet we are spending 11.6 cents on our debt.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) cash basis.
MR. HARRIS: Cash basis, whatever - interest cost is what we are talking
about. Debt services and other charges, debt charges and other financial
expenses, 11.6 cents. The actual cost, money put out - we will get to accrual
later. I am sure the Member for Topsail will get up and give us a lecture on
accounting in a few minutes, and she will tell us that when you hire a teacher
today, Mr. Chairman, aged twenty-three, you have to add to your public debt
because that teacher is going to rehire in thirty years and the pension fund is
underfunded. She will tell us that.
AN HON. MEMBER: And the severance.
MR. HARRIS: And her severance and everything else. You have to pay that.
If this teacher decides to continue with drugs, you have to add the cost of the
government's contribution and pay interest on it, because you haven't put it
in, pay interest on it for the next fifteen, twenty or thirty years. She will
tell us all that.
If you want to know how much you have left in your pocket and pay on the
public debt, I will tell you that it has gone down from 16.2 cents in 1989 to
11.6 cents today. If you go on the averages, it has gone down from 15.7 cents to
11.6 cents.
I don't know, Mr. Chairman, and I am not looking for whose fault that is or
whether that is good or bad or indifferent. What I am saying is that we have a
bit of a boogeyman out loose. There is a boogeyman out loose, the boogeyman of
how we are wallowing in debt down here. I am not sure where up is. Whenever I
look at a globe, Mr. Chairman, we are neither down nor up, we are kind of in the
middle there. Up is the North Pole somewhere.
Mr. Chairman, we are not wallowing in debt. We have some long-term problems -
and I see the former Auditor General, the Member for Topsail, nodding - and
these are significant problems. There is no question about that, Mr. Chairman. I
hope that this government is going to take some measures that will address these
long-term problems because unfunded pension liability is such a problem, Mr.
Chairman, and it has to be addressed. It was addressed very well, not quite
perfectly but very well, in the last round. Not the one with the big long strike
where people were ordered back to work, the one before that with a big short
strike in 2001. The Public Service pension plan was just about fixed. One little
thing needs to be done to fix it and that will be on track, Mr. Chairman. It
will be fully funded and fully self-sufficient and nobody need worry about it,
because it will be fixed.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has expired.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, for just one minute?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, we do have other pension funds that need to be
fixed, primarily the teachers' pension fund. I think anybody who has studied
government finance and looks at the state of our pension funds will recognize
that we have a significant unfunded liability in the Teachers' Pension Fund,
and that needs to be fixed. There is some debate about how to fix it, some
debate about whose fault it is, some debate about who has to come up with all
the money and all that needs to be sorted out but it needs to be fixed for the
long term, not all at once. We do not have to find $2 billion to throw into the
pot. We have to have a long-term commitment of finding a way of putting extra
money in so that it will be funded and that teachers will not be wondering
whether they are going to get their pension and governments will not be
wondering whether they are going to have their bond ratings lowered.
We do not have, Mr. Chairman, excruciating problems that should cause us all
to wring our hands on a daily basis and say we cannot afford to do anything. The
reality is that the Province's finances are in fairly reasonable shape,
otherwise we would not have been maintaining the highest credit rating that we
have had in the Province's history. It would be going down, down, down. Now,
members opposite might want to take credit for that. They can if they wish, but
we are not in a desperate financial situation. We have some long-term problems
that need long-term solutions. It doesn't really matter to me whether this
particular debt is paid off or some other debt is paid off. The reality is that
this Province - last year the Minister of Finance came to this House and said he
was going to have a $362 million cash deficit. In fact, as of March 31, he is in
a position of having had, without this expenditure on the public debt, a $103
million surplus; a difference of $475 million. I project that this time next
year, the so-called $62 million projected cash deficit is going to also turn
into another significant surplus and we expect that this government should be
doing much better in terms of programs than the offerings that were put on the
Table in the House of Assembly when the Budget was brought down this week.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to stand today for a few minutes on Bill 3 and to make some
commentary with respect to
An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of
Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The
Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The
Public Service.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board, certainly spoke in an introductory way to give, I guess, meaning and
background as to why it is critical - and as my colleague, the Government House
Leader - that this particular piece of legislation be pass