Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 7 May 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 21)
2001-05-07
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 7, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIV No. 21
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a local war
veteran who has been honored by the Norwegian Consulate for his efforts to the
country's Merchant Navy during the Second World War.
Ed Samson sailed for two years with the Merchant Navy in Norway during World
War II, and one of his roles was training Norwegian sailors to be gunners for
the merchant fleet.
Mr. Samson was presented with a medallion by the Norwegian Consulate recently
at a ceremony by Steinar Engeset, of the Royal Norwegian Consulate of Nova
Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Samson on this achievement and congratulate
all veterans for their service to our country.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the entire production
team associated with Etcetera 15, a musical production of students attending
Mount Pearl Senior High and Mount Pearl Intermediate Schools. Special
congratulations to the music director, Carl Goulding; the production manager,
Jackie Goulding; the stage director; Robert Power, and to all those students who
shared their knowledge and expertise in interpreting music and choreographing
the various selections.
Etcetera 15 is a celebration of youth. The show has become synonymous with
unbelievable energy and outstanding quality. This year more than 3000 talented
and dedicated students have combined their creative artistry to make this year's
production quite remarkable.
Involvement in musical presentations is a wonderful experience that develops
a great sense of achievement as well as instilling very positive concepts of
self worth.
Etcetera 15 opens tonight at the Mount Pearl Glacier and, over the next five
days, it is expected that as many as 5,000 friends, family and visitors will
patronize the show.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure today to honor in this House, Frank and Alice McDonald of
West St. Modeste, who exchanged wedding vows sixty-one years ago. Today, this
longest known married couple in the Labrador Straits can smile back on the hard
times and reflect with pride and accomplishments on their years of caring and
giving to family, church and community - an active involvement to this present
day.
I join my constituents today, and I am sure all members of this hon. House,
in extending best wishes to this wonderful couple for many future years of love,
health and happiness.
Incidently, Mr. and Mrs. McDonald are the proud parents of eleven children,
including Mrs. Alice O'Brien, wife of Lawrence O'Brien, MP for Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to rise today to offer my sincerest
congratulations to Gerry Rogers on winning the Gold Award for best Canadian
documentary for her production, My Left Breast . Gerry won this award just
yesterday at the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival in
Toronto. This happens to be North America's largest documentary festival.
I have seen the film. It is fabulous. It is self-described as an unusual film
about breast cancer. It describes Gerry's ordeal from the time she began to
lose her hair, and details her fears, hopes and courage as she dealt with her
ordeal.
This is not the first award this film has won, Mr. Speaker. It has also won
awards in Chicago and Houston and is already or will be screening in New
Zealand, San Francisco, New York, Australia, Calgary and Montreal in the near
future.
I ask the Members of the House of Assembly to join me in offering
congratulations to Gerry for this outstanding film.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today in light of the recent concerns
in Saskatchewan with respect to drinking water. Today I have directed a
committee of ministers, chaired by the Minister of Environment, to examine the
potential concerns surrounding cryptosporidium as they may pertain in this
Province. I have directed ministers to bring forward any measures necessary to
deal with drinking water safety in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to inform this hon. House
that there have been no known or documented cases of cryptosporidium in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The committee also includes the Minister of Health and Community Services,
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the Minister of Government
Services and Lands.
Mr. Speaker, ministers have been working on these water issues for some time.
They have been gathering and assessing information and will shortly advise
Cabinet on what additional measures may be required to ensure that
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have continued access to clean, safe drinking
water.
This move follows up on our commitment in the Speech from the Throne to bring
forward a strategic plan of action to ensure public confidence in our water
supplies. This ministerial committee will play an integral role in the formation
of the policy.
Also today, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs joined with his
federal and municipal colleagues to announce that some 172 infrastructure
projects have been recommended for approval under two programs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: The Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program has a
mandate to support green municipal infrastructure to ensure affordable clean
drinking water systems and environmentally safe sewage treatment.
The Province will allot $1.8 million this year from the capital works program
to install or upgrade municipal water disinfection systems. Municipalities are
being provided with 100 per cent funding up to a maximum of $100,000, to help
those communities currently on boil water advisories.
Mr. Speaker, this also happens to be national Drinking Water Week, and we
want to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have access to clean safe
drinking water not just now, but in the future. These initiatives, along with
enforced standards will help ensure that they have just that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is no doubt Premier, that this committee is probably long overdue. It
is needed. It is good news but it is long overdue. It is ironic, however, that
the Environment Minister, just our last sitting day, stood in this House and
said there is absolutely no problem with our drinking water supplies in this
Province, when in Canada we have some 500 boil orders in place. Almost half of
those, in the entire country, are in place in this Province. It is more needed
than just a committee. We should be testing for parasites such as this one that
is occurring in Saskatchewan and the fecal bacteria that occurred in Walkerton,
Ontario. We should be testing for these, not just putting a committee in place.
We have been asking questions in this House for months on our water supplies.
Just last week, Premier, we asked questions on this side of the House regarding
the quality of water in this Province and were told by your minister that there
is no problem. It is more than just a committee needed, Mr. Premier, we need
action.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad the Premier is taking this issue more seriously than his Minister
of Environment. I will say too that this committee, as it goes forward, should
be open, honest and forthcoming with the public, unlike the experience that we
had with THMs in our water systems throughout the Province.
I am glad that the Premier thinks it is important to have environmentally
safe sewage treatment in the Province. I wonder if he would tell us a little
later what the federal government plans to do to help clean up St. John's
Harbour, for example, as a project to have environmentally safe sewage
treatment. We do have to have a guarantee for all citizens of safe, clean,
drinking water.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: I hope that this committee will ensure this is the case.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to update my hon. colleagues on
recent media reports on the allocation of 3L shrimp to Prince Edward Island.
As you know, last year the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Herb
Dhaliwal, issued a temporary allocation of 1,500 tonnes of shrimp to a PEI
consortium. This allocation was met with strong criticism from both the public
and the provincial government, as it was in direct opposition to the principle
of adjacency and historic attachment.
The media have reported that the 2000 PEI allocation will be increased in
this year and will possibly be made into a permanent allocation. I spoke
directly with Minister Dhaliwal this morning, and I was assured by him that
these reports are not factual.
The 1,500 tonne temporary allocation to PEI was made in 2000 for a period of
three years. The federal minister has assured me that no decision has been made
to increase the allocation or make it permanent.
Furthermore, I would like to reassure the people of this Province, and the
members of this Legislature, that I have made representation to the federal
minister on several occasions, both in writing and personally, reiterating this
government's position on the allocation of our resources to interests outside
of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, this government will continue to oppose the allocation of any
additional fish resources off our coast to outside interests and we will work to
ensure that any increase in quota goes to the benefit of Newfoundland and
Labrador fish harvesters, processing plants and communities who are adjacent to
the resource.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say it is a sad day in Newfoundland and Labrador when we get a Ministerial
Statement that basically confirms and agrees with the 1,500 ton temporary
allocation to PEI. No opposition whatsoever to the allocation that was made last
year, the continuing allocation of it this year, and apparently, again next
year.
There are people in this galley today representing Black Duck Cove fish
plant, who are crying for shrimp to run their plant, and 1,500 tons would go a
long way towards helping them. We look around this Province and we see trucks
going around. Sometimes we get caught up in the trucks that go along by our
door. The real problem in Newfoundland and Labrador are not the trucks. The real
problem in Newfoundland and Labrador are the boats that are passing along by our
coasts with allocations like this filling up their holes.
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.
The allocation of shrimp to Prince Edward Island was wrong last year, it is
wrong this year, and it will be wrong next year. It is not good enough for the
minister to make a statement that he made, to say, for example, that they oppose
our fish resources off the coast going to outside interests. If the government
was so concerned about that we would not have seen FPI going to the control of
Nova Scotians, New Zealanders and Icelanders. It would still be a Newfoundland
company, operating in Newfoundland interests.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize May 6-12 as North
American Occupational Safety and Health Week, or NAOSH Week. This is the fifth
year that employers, government, labour and workers, in Canada, the United
States and Mexico, will join forces to promote a greater awareness for the
importance of preventing workplace accidents and occupational illnesses.
Just last week, Canadians paid tribute to those who have been injured or who
have died on the job, in an official Day of Mourning. In a ceremony here at
Confederation Building, employers, employees were encouraged to strengthen their
commitment and support of occupational health and safety, in an effort to bring
an end to work-related illness and injury.
On Wednesday, May 2, I presented this year's Occupational Health and Safety
Recognition Awards. These awards are an initiative of the Department of Labour
and the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. I am extremely
pleased to publicly acknowledge the recipients of these awards today in this
Legislature.
This year's recipients of the Award of Merit are Gordon Aldie, Paul Alyward
of Canadian Helicopters and Helen LaFleche of Voisey' Bay Nickel. In extreme
weather conditions, this team of professionals took
part in a medivac operation
to rescue and transport a severely injured worker.
The Outstanding Health and Safety Committee/Representative Award was
presented jointly this year to Health and Community Services - Western, and Pat
and Marleen McMaster Enterprises - Canadian Tire, Stephenville.
The Health and Safety Program Award, for the implementation of an outstanding
health and safety program was captured by COSTCO Wholesale of St. John's.
Finally, the Minister's Award of Excellence, was presented to H.J O'Connell
Construction Ltd. of Wabush. In 1997, this company implemented a comprehensive
health and safety program and has succeeded in reducing its lost-time accidents
by 90 per cent, and lost days by 97 per cent. On July 16, 2000, the field
operations crews in Labrador West marked a significant safety milestone by
celebrating 1,000 days without a lost-time accident.
The winners of this year's occupational health and safety awards set an
example for all of us. I believe that the changes these people are making in the
workplace are exactly the kind of activities that will lead to the creation of a
positive safety culture in this Province. I applaud our winners and encourage
them to continue their commitment to a safe workplace. As well, I hope that
others will learn from their example and strive to make the same commitment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for a copy of her statement
before the House sat today. I would also, on this side of the House,
congratulate the recipients of the various awards, the Occupational Health and
Safety Recognition Awards. I would also like to say that I attended the wreath
laying ceremony here in the House the week before last. But, Mr. Speaker, I am
more concerned about the minister's great, grand news conference this morning
where she talked about the task report, changing the mindset of the people in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In that she said - here is the statement - "The legislative program
which I am announcing today in the House of Assembly provides the Commission
with the necessary tools ...." I am really disappointed, and I am sure the
association for the disabled in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the
injured workers, are very disappointed also, that the minister did not stand in
her place today and announce the legislation that she is going to be putting in
place to address the forty-eight recommendations within this report, the
forty-eight recommendations which refer to the assessments, entitlement,
prevention, early and safe return to work, health care provider accountability
and many, many others. That is what I was expecting from the minister today,
some form of statement or copy of the legislation or something of that nature.
For the minister to get up today, when she has this report for over three
months now - this report has been available for three months and it is sad to
say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, just to clue up.
It is sad to say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is not doing her job in
addressing the concerns of the injured workers in this Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, congratulations to the recipients of this year's award. I too
attended the national day of mourning ceremony in Labrador West last week. One
of the recipients of this award is from Labrador West and it is amazing what
they have accomplished through their education program, because they are
involved in heavy industry and construction. The most important aspect, Mr.
Speaker, of any workplace is a safe and healthy environment, and health and
safety education is not something that can be done once, as a one shot deal, it
is a continuing process.
I would say to the minister, that the health and safety committees in this
Province - I think it would be incumbent upon her as minister to review the
committee's now dysfunction in the Province with respect to the number of
committees that are actively meeting, when they are required to meet under the
law, and the following of reports submitted to her department, because I do not
know what it is today, but I can state, with no uncertainty, that over the years
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: - there is a lot of room for improvement in that area.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that this week, May
7-May 13, 2001, is Mining Week in Canada.
Earlier today it was my pleasure to join the Newfoundland and Labrador
Chamber of Mineral Resources in officially declaring Mining Week in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
The theme of this week's celebration is: Mining Makes it Happen.
Mr. Speaker, Mining Week is designed primarily to recognize the important
contribution that the mineral sector makes to this Province's economy and the
economy of Canada as a whole. It also provides an opportunity to recognize all
of the people who work and earn their living in the mining industry.
As hon. members are aware, government has been committed to the well being of
our mining industry. Programs such as the Mineral Exploration Assistance Program
have encouraged new exploration and growth in our mining sector. This program
has also provided financial assistance to numerous prospectors who would
otherwise not have the opportunity to commence their exploration projects.
Government fully understands that exploration is an essential component in
the development of mineral resources and will continue to support and encourage
new exploration programs. It has been proven that exploration does lead, in
fact, to discovery of new resources and, in turn, results in the generation of
new wealth through new investment, employment and business opportunities.
This incentive program has been warmly received and commended by the mining
industry generally.
Mr. Speaker, our mineral industry continues to play a vital
part in our
Province's economic well-being. This industry directly employs approximately
2,700 people. Mineral shipments in 2000 were worth approximately $1 billion to
this Province's economy.
As our mineral sector continues to grow, we will witness new developments and
discoveries that will further strengthen this important industry. Projects, such
as Hammerdown, Duck Pond and Voisey's Bay, are just a few examples of the
exciting mineral potential that this Province has to offer.
As exploration continues to grow, government anticipates new discoveries that
will ensure new developments that will bring numerous benefits to the people of
the Province.
Mr. Speaker, it is essential for government to support mining. We must
provide fair and equitable policies for the investment community and ensure that
the people of the Province receive the maximum benefits from their resources.
In honour of Mining Week, the Department of Mines and Energy has set up a
public display of Newfoundland and Labrador minerals in the main lobby of the
Natural Resources Building. I would invite all hon. members to visit this
display during the week.
I encourage everyone to celebrate Mining Week and to recognize the
contribution of the mining industry to the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, join with the government and the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of
Mineral Resources in welcoming an opportunity to recognize the importance of
Mining Week in our Province.
Also, the program the minister referred to, the Mineral Exploration
Assistance Program, has served us very well with two Newfoundlanders, Verbiski
and Chislett, who discovered Voisey's Bay. I am sure there are many other
potential sites around this Province and many other young prospectors out there
working under this program, and outside the program, in trying to find other
potential sites here in our Province.
The minister alluded to 2,700 people working here in the industry, and in
that 2,700 people, many of them are very high-paid, year-round jobs that
contribute significantly to the economy of our Province. Although the fishery
traditionally employed tens of thousands of people - it was the biggest employer
- it was never the biggest contributor to our Gross Domestic Product. The mining
industry has traditionally been the biggest supporter to the GDP here in our
Province for a number of years. The Opposition here is certainly very cognizant
of the importance of mining here in our Province, and we too join with the
government and the Chamber of Mineral Resources in asking people to pay
particular significance to the importance of mining to our Province and to
promote it, and especially continue funding into the systems program for
exploration in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, too, acknowledge that mining is a very important industry to the
Province, a $1 billion industry. My district, I am proud to say, represents most
of the workers in the mining industry in this Province.
A couple of weeks ago, I attended the opening of Mining Week celebrations in
Labrador West. This year they have dedicated a three-week period to celebrate
mining activities. As part of that celebration there are mine tours being
offered to people in the area, who have not had the opportunity to visit them
yet, and there are educational programs being offered in the school system to
make students aware of the career opportunities that are available in mining.
Again, it is important that we support programs that allow for exploration to
take place. I know that in Labrador new discoveries are taking place each year
with various different types of minerals, and with the wealth and the land mass
of Labrador -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: - I am sure that in the future more deposits will be
discovered.
Thank you.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits and White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last summer the whole of the fishing industry and indeed the whole of the
population of Newfoundland and Labrador were outraged by the federal government
decision to allocate 1,500 tons of shrimp from off the Coast of Newfoundland to
a P.E.I. consortium.
Mr. Speaker, here we are, one year later, on the eve of the 2001 shrimp
management plan, and we hear that DFO has reissued the 1,500 ton allocation to
P.E.I. It appears that this decision was made about two weeks ago.
I would like to ask the Premier: Were there any consultations with the
Province before the decision to reallocate was made?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite is correct in that 1,500 tons were allocated to P.E.I.
last summer, and I think he knows how the people of this Province felt about
that, as well as how this government felt about it. The fact remains that, when
that allocation was made, it was a temporary allocation. It was for a period of
three years. So the actual decision was made last year that it would be done for
three years, not on a one-year-by-one-year basis.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &
White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The people of this Province understood that it was a temporary allocation, or
we were told that it was a temporary allocation. The people of the Province
understood that it was a one-time deal. I think the people of this Province
understood that it was a one-year deal. I suggest that if members opposite want
to contradict that, they can go and ask the people of the Province what they
think of it.
The question is: When did the government become aware of this? Was it last
summer? Was it this morning when the minister talked to Minister Dhaliwal? - or
when was it?
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All I can do is reiterate what I just said. Last year when that allocation
was given, it was given for a three-year period. Yes, we were aware of that.
Yes, most of the people in the Province were aware of it at the time.
Did we agree with it? We certainly did not, and we still do not agree with
it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &
White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it appears from the minister's statement
earlier that this government has accepted this blatant abuse of the adjacency
principle. He did not oppose the continued allocation of the P.E.I. quota.
I would like for him to confirm today whether they do indeed support
adjacency, or if they have abdicated the position that they appeared to have
before, and this Province has, on the adjacency principle: that no further
allocations, and not just no further allocations but that the allocation that
was made to P.E.I. last year not be reallocated in future years - not this year,
not next year, and not any time down the road - and that there be no increase in
the allocation.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member mentioned last week that language is important, and maybe we
need some language courses on this side, but I do not see anywhere in the
statement that I made today that we agree to that allocation, or that we agree
that it should be given for the next two years. That was never the intent of
this side.
I have talked to the minister and he told me there was no intention of
increasing that quota or to made it permanent. That it a temporary allocation
for three years, just like we have 360 inshore boats fishing, under sixty-five
feet, out here today, who are also fishing on a temporary permit. I cannot see
anybody in Ottawa making a temporary allocation to P.E.I. permanent, when we
have 360 fishers off the East Coast of this Province in boats under sixty-five
feet who are operating on a temporary license.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Premier. I want to ask the Premier about the
settlement he and the President of Treasury Board reached last month with the
public sector unions.
Hospital boards and school boards are saying that they were told that there
would be no cost over and above the agreement on wages; that is, if the unions
wanted any other contract benefits, the cost would have to come out of this wage
settlement. I want to ask the Premier: Are they right? Is that the Premier's
understanding of the agreement that he reached with NAPE and CUPE?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We made a commitment that we would fund what we agreed to as it relates to
monetary increases. We made that quite clear in the outstanding issues of which
we are still trying to finalize in writing with both sides.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If I heard the minister right, she is saying that they will fund those items
over and above the 5-5-5. Is that what the minister is saying, that she agrees
with the union position and the government will fund those items? I wasn't
clear on what the minister said. She sort of tried to skate around the issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is the skater. I
don't know how much skating he has been doing lately, but he used to be a
skater anyway.
MR. MATTHEWS: A good skater, too.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Is that right?
Mr. Speaker, what we have said is that what is in the agreement is covered
with respect to the allocation of funds. If you are speaking to a specific
issue, maybe you should ask a specific issue and not skate around it, I would
say to the member opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There are many, many issues and I could spend all day listing some of the
issues. If the minister does not know what the issues are that are at stake, I
think the minister has been out to lunch and does not know what is going on.
I want to ask the minister: Did the minister agree to a settlement without
knowing the cost implications of these other settlements? A master agreement on
school boards is one example; costs that went into the health care system, that
have been alluded to, and been in ongoing discussions with the health board
associations there. Are these extra items going to be funded over and above the
5-5-5, I ask the minister?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not out to lunch. The member might be
out to lunch but I am here today to answer these questions, but a
preamble
deserves an answer and I think it is only appropriate.
I will say, on two issues, first of all: whenever you have a tentative
agreement, the members are the first ones to make the decision on whether it is
acceptable or not. With respect to the school boards, the member opposite also
knows that when we made the agreement on the tentative agreement with the unions
it was clear that there had to be outstanding negotiations as it relates to the
collapsing of a number of collective agreements with the school boards into one.
What was agreed at that point in time was that the money was acceptable but
there were outstanding issues that would have to be negotiated. They have not
reached a tentative agreement. In fact, they are delaying it until September.
That is a whole different piece to what we agreed on than the other outstanding
issues that you are referring to.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) question.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is the question and it is the answer to the
question, I say to the members opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the minister: Is she now saying that those agreements that have
to be negotiated and agreed to in the future involving monetary matters will be
over and above the negotiated 5-5-5. Is that what the minister is saying?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite has totally
missed the point. That agreement has not been reached with -
MR. SULLIVAN: You have missed the point.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, I have not missed any point.
MR. SULLIVAN: You have skated around it.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I have not skated anywhere. You are not listening. Take
your skates off and listen, I say to you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we do not have a tentative agreement with
the school boards. We do not have that. I think that is clear. Wayne Lucas has
spoken to it; CUPE has spoken to it. We do not have a tentative agreement with
them. We do have a tentative agreement with the other unions with NAPE and CUPE.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am answering directly. It was clear; you can speak to
Wayne Lucas about it. He said it himself: they are deferring what they are going
to be doing until the fall. We do not have a tentative agreement with them. We
have a tentative agreement with all the other pieces of NAPE and CUPE: with the
hospital sector, MOS, GS and the other outstanding groups. We do not have a
tentative agreement with the school boards. That has been clear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, it is not one bit clearer than when I asked the question first, because
the minister has failed to tell us if this government is going to pay extra for
those other items that have a monetary implication.
Mr. Hanlon of NAPE said the outstanding issues for the union alone could cost
millions of dollars with their particular union. Health boards and hospital
boards are out saying - school boards - that they do not have the money to pay
for these other items over and above the salary agreement.
I want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: How does the minister propose to
deal with these? Will the hospital boards and the school boards have to cut
programs and services to pay for those non- salary items that were in the
contract that you have yet to settle?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member is doing everything possible to
try to get across the impression that we have agreed to something where we do
not have -
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: You are missing the point. We do not have a tentative
agreement with the school boards.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) when you do reach one?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: We will have to get the agreement, won't we? I am not
negotiating with the member opposite. Mr. Speaker, I do not negotiate with the
member opposite.
MR. SULLIVAN: ( Inaudible) negotiate an agreement but you don't know
what it costs?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, my crystal ball is just as good as his
crystal ball. If you do not have a tentative agreement, how can you give the
total cost?
If you want to ask us what the tentative agreement is, it is the question and
it is the answer, Mr. Speaker. We do not have a tentative agreement with the
school boards. What will it cost? We do not know what it will cost because we do
not have an agreement. That is the issue: no new position, as much as he would
like to think it is. You ask Wayne Lucas: Do we have a tentative agreement with
the school boards? He would say, no.
Now, if he is asking me, do we have an agreement on other items? What other
items is he talking about? I would be happy to answer then.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the Minister of Environment
said during debate in this House of Assembly that this Province has no problem
with our drinking water supplies. What an unbelievable statement for the
minister to make, Mr. Speaker. The national media report that we have just over
500 boil orders in place throughout Canada. Almost half of those are in place
right here in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: With $1.8 million being announce today, and
a cap of $100,000 per community, that could mean just eighteen communities get
financed out of some 240 communities. Minister do you honestly believe that this
is enough money to address the issues in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
What I had said on the last sitting day of the House was in response to what
the Member for Conception Bay South had said when he talked about the unsafe
drinking water here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. These are
inaccurate statements, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: These are inaccurate statements, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: So you did not say it?
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: What I said was that the drinking water in
Newfoundland is safe, and that is a pretty fair statement, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: You see, the hon. member refuses to allow me to answer
the question. The reason the boil order is in place, where there is inadequate
chlorination or filtration -
MR. J. BYRNE: To make it safe, right?
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Absolutely.
Mr. Speaker, we have no evidence that it is unsafe. I heard the other member
talk about going into a hotel where it says: Do not drink the water. These kinds
of statements are made to protect the ownership of that property for liability
purposes.
We have some $10 million that is available for water treatment over the next
couple of years. We have allotted $1.8 million this year.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: My department has been taking the lead on water not
only in Newfoundland and Labrador but across the country.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess the minister would feel safe taking the liability, then.
Mr. Speaker, North Battleford has a water treatment facility in place but
they are still battling cryptosporidium and the infection caused by it. That
raises concerns again about the safety of the water supply in this Province.
I am asking the minister today: Does this Province test for cryptosporidium
or other such parasites at our water supplies and the water treatment facilities
throughout this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
When the hon. member talks about North Battleford in Saskatchewan, he is
trying to compare apples and oranges. Saskatchewan is a farming province, a
farming community. We do not have that situation here in Newfoundland, where we
have a large concentration of animals that are close to a water supply. Nowhere
in Newfoundland -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should listen this.
Nowhere here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador -
MR. T. OSBORNE: Cryptosporidium is not (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member has asked a question; now I ask him to give the minister an
opportunity to answer.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Nowhere here in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador do we discharge sewer upstream of a water supply. Here in the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have in excess of 200 protected watershed areas
to which development is restricted or reduced.
When the member talks about unsafe water, he should look at what we have
done, as a department, to ensure that the water is safe. Where there is no
chlorination, or inadequate chlorination or filtration, we have put in place a
boil order.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's
South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: This Province has a lot of water concerns, including
incinerators near water supplies and other such things. Many of the
municipalities in this Province do not have treatment facilities at present. Do
you think that we have a responsibility, as a Province, to the people of this
Province, not only to put committees in place but to be testing for bacteria and
parasites that are harmful to human health?
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the committee; I will save them a lot of time: what
we need in this Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we need in this Province, Minister, is more stringent testing and better
treatment. I am asking you when you are going to put that in place throughout
this Province for the 240 communities-plus that have boil orders in place?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
That is already in place. We are actively testing all water supplies in the
Province.
MR. T. OSBORNE: For cryptosporidium?
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: We have some 800 water supplies in the Province. We
have already set up a complete data base on these water supplies. We are working
on a daily basis with the municipalities in the Province. We have also gone out
in areas where there were problems with THMs and filtration, and the engineers
have worked with them to resolve that particular issue.
Mr. Speaker, we are very active in terms of water in this Province. I do not
mind saying that the top priority of my department is water. The ministerial
committee has been actively working over the last couple of years on these
particular issues and will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, knowing full well,
and realizing that municipalities have the responsibility for water supplies. We
are quite willing to partake with them in resolving any issues they might have.
It was only in March that my department hosted a water conference at Gander
where some 350 representatives from across this Province took part. They were
quite pleased. Just this morning I sat down and met with the Newfoundland and
Labrador Federation of Municipalities. I met with Memorial University, talking
about a Centre of Excellence for
the Province. We are very active in water in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier and relates to the clean up of St. John's
Harbour. This is not only an eyesore but a health and environmental risk. It is
a disgrace to the Province and to the country. Now that the Province and the
municipalities involved have made a commitment to one-third funding, I want to
ask the Premier what efforts his government has made and what commitments have
of the cost of the St. John's Harbour clean up?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, I do have to report that we have no definite commitment from
a firm request, repeatedly, that they participate with a special fund, and a
separate fund, for an initiative as important as the clean up of the St. John's
Harbour. I know that we will continue working with them until we are successful
in getting that commitment.
I am pleased that the hon. member acknowledged the fact that the provincial
government has committed our one-third share, as have the municipalities in the
region.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Many people in this Province are wondering whether there is any advantage at
all in having the only Liberal government in Canada and having, in fact, the
former Premier sitting in the federal Cabinet.
When does this Premier, and this government, expect to get some commitment
from Mr. Tobin and his federal counterparts on the clean up of the St. John's
Harbour so this problem can be addressed once and for all? When do we expect to
get a commitment?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I cannot give a definite date, or even an answer, as to exactly
for the clean up of St. John's Harbour, in particular, here in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
I expect maybe the hon. member might be leaving us later today or tomorrow to
go to Ottawa to be present for the private member's debate tomorrow evening
about this very issue because I understand there are some other members of our
Legislature who are very interested in that particular issue. Unfortunately, I
am not in a position to give a commitment and an understanding as to when the
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Education.
The school boards are concerned about the effect of municipal tax assessments
on their operating budgets. In some communities increased assessments have gone
up by tens of thousands of dollars. I understand that last year the Department
of Education covered the cost. I am asking the minister: Will the department do
the same this year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS FOOTE: The only thing I apologize for is my voice today.
I welcome the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, because it is a serious
issue. The Town of Carbonear, in fact, is the only jurisdiction today that has
decided to take the regulations that were amended, the Municipal and Provincial
Affairs Act, and increase the tax rate to the school and hospital boards in the
vicinity of 800 per cent. It is a very serious issue. A build up that would
normally have cost about $4,000 is now costing about $33,000.
Last year, when this happened, the board obviously had not budgeted for this
kind of expenditure increase in taxes and the department covered it. We had
hoped it was a one-time thing. Unfortunately, the town saw fit to continue that
practice and this year, again, the board is looking at another $35,000 bill. It
is difficult for any of us, who have not budgeted for that kind of increase in
expenditure, to find the funds to do so. I am hoping that it is a one-time
thing. I am hoping the Town of Carbonear will give this some serious, sober
thought for next year and that it is a one-time thing throughout the Province.
Otherwise, it is going to have serious implications for the department and for
the boards in terms of how we can spend our education dollars.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The municipalities certainly have the right to tax school properties, and
more and more, I suspect, will be doing so, Minister. Now, what I am looking for
from the minister is assurance that the school boards will not have to pay for
municipal taxes out of their instructional budgets or school maintenance
budgets.
Will the minister guarantee that school boards will not have to layoff staff,
cut programs or neglect maintenance, in order to pay these municipal taxes?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that I would like to
think this is one of a kind. Of course, we have no guarantee that is the case.
It would be regrettable if it were not the case. Having said that, we give the
boards their operating budgets and they know how to spend those operating
budgets. Obviously we would like to see the money go into instructional
programing.
I guess what we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is that if this is something that
sets a precedent and we see other municipalities doing the same thing, we are
going to have to seriously look at going back and amending the regulations so
that this is not possible. Obviously there is nothing to stop a municipality
from increasing the taxes, but we would expect them to do it in a fair and
reasonable manner, and that is the discussion that has taken place with the Town
of Carbonear. I mean, anyone would have to agree that an 800 per cent increase
is far from being reasonable.
So, we would expect the towns, yes, to increase their taxes and we would
expect the boards, working with the department, to pay those taxes, but it
becomes a bit onerous, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about an 800 per cent
increase. The Department of Education does not have the dollars, the boards do
not have the dollars. So we are going to have to look seriously at how we deal
with this very serious problem, and -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.
MS FOOTE: - whether or not we amend the regulations, if this becomes
precedent setting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
A short time ago I raised a concern here in the Legislature about the
possibility of duty-free lumber now entering the United States from this
Province being subjected to extra tariffs and duty, which would spell disaster
to this rural industry, an industry that employs in excess of 3,000 people and
generates in excess of $31 million per year in export value.
I heard the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods raising his concern
one morning last week, and it bothers me that this issue has been brewing for
some months now. The agreement exempting Atlantic Canada and, in particular,
this Province, from tariffs and duties expired March 31 of this year.
I ask the minister, why it took his government up until now to acquire not
only a lawyer, but any interest whatsoever in this very important issue?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This government has acted long before this week or last week. Mr. Speaker,
the Maritime Lumber Bureau, Maritime lumber producers association, has been the
representative for the four Atlantic provinces with regard to the softwood
lumber dispute. Our representations have been made and, in fact, there was a
meeting by the deputy premier a few weeks ago in PEI, I believe, with the other
Maritime premiers. Our Premier has already signed letters, I think in the last
week and a half, pertaining to the commerce department's actions that they
have taken.
Mr. Speaker, we are in the process, as a department, to make sure that - I am
sure the hon. member knows that first when the dispute came out, at the end of
the month, that the US commerce department left out the four Atlantic Provinces,
because, I suppose, of the old Maritime accord, but they changed that position
as of last week, Mr. Speaker, and included the Atlantic Provinces in the whole
inspection investigation program.
So, we are making sure, as a department and as a government, that all the
integrated mills in the Province and any companies associated with the softwood
lumber dispute have made representation to the U. S. Commerce Department because
if they do not before May 15, then they will lose the chance to make
representation to the U. S. Commerce Department. They may come in and do two or
three investigations after that, but as of today, we have done everything
possible to make sure that our companies, and the Province as a whole, is
represented in regard to the softwood dispute.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister if he has any concerns whatsoever that the Atlantic
Provinces, including this Province, might now be included in the old agreement
covering all of Canada?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WOODFORD: That has been a concern all along, Mr. Speaker, but if you
go back through the last three agreements over the last fifteen years, we have
been fortunate enough, for the whole, to have what they call a Maritime accord
agreement included in the Canadian softwood lumber agreements with the United
States. So that exempted us from a tariff up until around 14 billion or 15
billion feet of lumber. After that there was a progressive tariff but in place.
Right now they have the Atlantic Provinces included. That is a concern. There is
no question about that. Now the federal government has taken a different slant
on it. At first they said: okay, we want one agreement for the whole country.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.
MR. WOODFORD: Right now they are saying there will be bilateral
agreements with the provinces and they will support that. That is why we are
taking the initiative we are taking today to make sure that our companies in the
Province are well represented. I think at the end of the day that Atlantic
Canada will be exempt, but it is a real concern and we are taking that into
consideration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, it is a real concern
and if that concern should become a reality, I ask the minister if he has
discussed compensation for employers and employees should lumber be now
subjected to tariffs and duties entering this United States market?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to take a defeatist attitude
on this. We are going to make sure that we have representation made. The
companies in the Province feel fairly optimistic, and I feel optimistic, as the
minister here in the Province, that we put forward a good case. They have two on
the board. They have anti-dumping regulations and they have countervailing. How
can they charge this Province with anti-dumping? That is not even a question as
far as I am concerned. They are, so-called, out to lunch.
On countervailing; they may have a question on that, but I am sure when they
come and do their investigations of the mills in the Province, Mr. Speaker, that
the mills here will show the U.S. Commerce Department that there is no reason
for countervailing duties as well. I think we will win at the end of the day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act to Amend the Financial Administration
Act. (Bill 17)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave
to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act. (Bill
18)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the
following private members' motion:
WHEREAS Canada has the largest marine boundary of any nation in the world;
and
WHEREAS a strong shipbuilding industry is an important part of any economic
strategy for a strong trading nation such as Canada; and
WHEREAS we have a skilled workforce and facilities in this country capable of
competing with any other nation in the world in the shipbuilding industry; and
WHEREAS the shipbuilding industry in Canada has been adversely affected by
unfair trade practices by other nations; and
WHEREAS Canada has significantly subsidized other modes of transportation to
take advantage of world market opportunities; and
WHEREAS Canada, particularly on the east coast, has a developing offshore oil
sector which will create an environment where marine construction will be a
strategic sector where we can lead the world;
act quickly to implement the recommendations in the Report of the National
Shipbuilding and Industrial Marine Partnership: Breaking Through .
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I stand to comment on a question asked by the
Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on Friday when he asked, would the government
make available the text of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas to the
public for scrutiny. I just wanted to say that there has been no text made
available to the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. We are told that the
text will be made available to the public within two weeks, and that is when we
will get it. When we do get it, we will table it for the hon. gentleman.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am presenting a petition signed by over 600 residents and area supporters
of the Black Duck Cove shrimp plant located on the Northern Peninsula. This
petition is enormous, based on the population of this area. I would like to read
the prayer of petition in its proper form.
To the hon House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened,
the petition of the undersigned area residents and workers of the Black Duck
Cove shrimp plant and their supporters:
WHEREAS the shrimp processing of Black Duck Cove is threatened with closure;
and
WHEREAS the fishery is the only industry on the Northern Peninsula that will
provide economic growth to its residents; and
WHEREAS there are eighty workers who will be unemployed if the processing
company is not found to operate as planned; and
WHEREAS the shrimp processing plant is virtually the only employment
opportunity for the community;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to take immediate action to ensure that the plant does not close and make sure
the plant is back in operation so that the community of Black Duck Cove will
continue to survive;
And as in duty bound your petitioners will very pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is a crisis situation. The Northern Peninsula is struggling
through a certain economic depression. The unemployment rate is the highest in
the Province. People are desperate. They are not looking for preferential
treatment or luxuries, merely the opportunity to carve out a modest living for
themselves and their families.
There is no plan in place for the Northern Peninsula, only crisis management.
The only work that is available in most communities on the Northern Peninsula is
through federal programs that offer only uninsurable earnings. They usually come
at a time of year when little work can be done and it is not part of the
strategy to better our communities, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development has said on many
occasions that if we do not find a way for communities like Black Duck Cove to
exist from the ocean, there is no reason for them to exist at all. I agree with
the minister. I would go further to say that all communities, like Black Duck
Cove, that have fought and struggled to find a place in the fishery should get
the help that they need.
This community has never given up and has been active since day one. There is
no reason why this plant is not operating today. The large amounts of shrimp
that have passed the community to be processed in other parts of the Province is
too much to bear. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, government policy must be one that
reflects the principle of adjacency. Premier Grimes made it known that he
supported the principle of adjacency in the leadership race. Now that he is
Premier, I hope that the people of the Northern Peninsula can count on that
commitment.
What the people of Black Duck Cove and area residents want to know, Mr.
Speaker, is: will government take immediate action to ensure that the plant at
Black Duck Cove does not close, and ensure that the plant will soon be back in
operation?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition. It is not in the usual form that a
petition is brought forward to the House here, but I have cleared it with the
Clerk. The intent and the spirit of the petition is certainly well understood.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is the hon. member asking for leave to present the petition?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, leave if I could, please.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: It is a petition. It is not written to the House of
Assembly, but I have asked the Clerk to look at the petition. The spirit and the
intent of the petition is quite clear, I say to members in the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: It reads: The residents who live near the stretch of
gravel road, 0.7 kilometres that runs between the Discovery Trail and Route 234,
are requesting that our road be paved in this year, 2001. We are asking you to
petition the government on our behalf to have this request resolved.
Mr. Speaker, this is a petition signed by the residents who live on this
particular stretch of road. There are some forty names here, forty people who
live on this 0.7 kilometres, 700 meters, of a roadway. It is presently a gravel
road. It is located in Lethbridge, I say to the minister, and there are also
three businesses that are located on this road. All they are asking for - they
are not asking that we go out and put in sidewalks. They are not asking that we
go out and put in water and sewer. The request is that this particular piece of
roadway be included in this construction season to be upgraded and paved.
When they talk about upgrading, you do not need to go out there and widen the
road; you do not need to go out there and build up the road. You need to put on
a form of class A stone and pave that
section of roadway.
It is traveled by the school bus every morning that the school is open. The
bus driver himself have come forward and signed the petition because he knows
the condition of this
section of road. Granted, every year the department goes
out and puts calcium chloride there to keep the dust down, but that is certainly
not a resolution to their problem.
They are asking that this 700 metres of roadway be included this year, in
this construction season, and have it paved. There is an upgrading and paving
project on a stretch of road, the Discovery Trail, which is bordering on this
section of road, and they are asking that their 700 metres be included.
Mr. Speaker, that is the intent of the petition. It is signed by the forty
residents who live on that particular piece of roadway. All they are asking for
is that they receive the same treatment as other people in this Province. When
they go out to license their car, they have to pay the same price for the
licence. They have to pay the same taxes on gasoline. They have to pay the same
price to register their car. They are asking that they receive the same
treatment - the forty residents and their families who live on this particular
stretch of roadway. I have traveled the roadway myself many times.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: There are new houses there. There are new houses going up
there on an annual basis. I ask the government and I ask the minister if he
would include this
section of roadway in this year's Capital Roads Program.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have another petition today on bulk water exports from the Province. I will
read the prayer of the petition:
We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of
Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of
water from this Province. Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that
has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador, has resulted in the majority of
benefits going outside the Province. It is time that we demand our full and fair
share. With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the
opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff from secondary
processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled
and processed in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I should rebut, while presenting this petition, comments made by
the Environment Minister on the last sitting day, comments that he said I made
which are simply untrue.
In presenting this petition, I will say that I believe there are implications
under the NAFTA agreement to exporting water. I will also say that, whether
there were implications or not, we should not allow our resources to leave this
Province without giving maximum benefits to the people of this Province.
So, there are two arguments there. One is whether or not there are
implications under NAFTA, and I believe there are. There are experts who believe
there are. David Collenette and other federal ministers believe there are. The
U.S. trade representative that negotiated the deal on behalf of the United
States believes there is. There is a three member tribunal. If there is a
challenge to this, it will go to a three member tribunal. We know where the
States will stand; they have already said so. Where Canada's official
representative will stand is unclear; but then those two pick a third, and where
that person will stand is where the real danger lies because you only need two
out of three to rule in favour of an opponent. That is one of the questions that
we are facing with the export of bulk water.
The other is the robbery of the people who own the resource, and that is the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the real argument. That is the
major argument here, the fact that the people of this Province deserve full and
fair share of their resources. They deserve maximum spinoff, maximum royalties,
maximum jobs from their resources, and that is what I am arguing. I am not
shifting my argument from NAFTA to that, but I am saying that is the more
important argument to the people of this Province, the fact that they want
maximum benefits, maximum spinoffs, maximum royalties, maximum jobs from their
resources.
That is where I stand on this. That is the argument that I am putting
forward. The people of the Province have spoken very, very clearly on this issue
over two years ago. They have spoken clearly on this. They have told government
what they want government to do regarding this issue.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) being otherwise entertained there, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Motion 3.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Labour to introduce a bill, "An Act To
Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act And The Occupational
Health and Safety Act," carried. (Bill 16)
On motion, Bill 16 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. LUSH: Order 5, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order 5.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral
Services Act." (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the absence of my colleague, the Minister of Government Services and
Lands, I will just provide a couple of introductory remarks for second reading
on this particular bill.
The amendment is basically in two parts. One
part is, where there is
provision for an assurance fund to be created under the new legislation that was
enacted in December of 2000, there needed to be some way that we could provide
for the assurance fund to be built up. In that case, we needed to include in the
amendment opportunities for the assurance fund to borrow in order to create and
generate some monies in the fund in the initial stages of the new legislation.
This would enable the assurance fund to kick in and be operational at the
beginning and at the front end of this particular legislation.
The second part of the amendment is to allow for the bill to be made
retroactive. Simply put, we had a situation in late December, or prior to
December 20, when a funeral home went bankrupt and we needed to have some
mechanism in place to allow the assurance fund to take care of the funds that
were dispensed through the bankruptcy. There was about $500,000 in that
particular home that needed to be taken care of.
The industry itself helped us out at the time to ensure that this was taken
care of; so, in order to make it legally binding, we needed to make the
legislation retroactive to November 1, 2000, to ensure that the assurance fund
can take care of the outstanding money and the money that people are out for
that fund.
Those are the two basic issues in terms of the legislative change to this
particular bill. Maybe there will be more questions in Committee stage, but that
simply takes care of the two amendments.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for speaking to this bill on behalf of his caucus
companion, his absent comrade.
Mr. Speaker, we are not going to unduly delay this bill. It is simply a
housecleaning issue. Basically, it will eliminate the risk of situations such as
what happened out in Port aux Basques, and protect consumers, essentially, who
prepaid for their funerals.
We support this bill. It is a bill that I do not feel needs any significant
level of debate. It is a very straightforward bill, and for the right reasons I
think both sides of the House should support this bill and expedite its passage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will close the
debate.
The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I concur with the member opposite, that it is a straightforward change but it
is a necessary one to ensure that consumers are protected under this new
legislation.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services
Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House on tomorrow. (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 6, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order 6.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act,
2000." (Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of the amendment of this bill is to allow us to make the
enhancements to the Newfoundland and Labrador seniors' benefit as we announced
in the Budget this year. It is important to note because the seniors' benefit
has increased from $200 to $300 per year and the benefit will go to families
with a net income up to $14,000. It will tail off as the income rises between
$14,000 and $20,000.
There are a couple of important points, I think as well, with respect to
eligibility. Any senior over the age of sixty-five, regardless if they are
collecting other pensions benefits, would qualify to receive this benefit. They
do not need to apply. It is automatically sent out in October, around the same
time as the GST/HST credit cheques are mailed as well.
One of the most important things, I believe, in this new amendment, is that
of the 28,000 people who actually receive this benefit, 46 per cent of the
61,000 persons aged sixty-five and over will receive it; but, most importantly,
of the 28,000 beneficiaries, 19,000 or 68 per cent of them are women.
I think it is a very important amendment. The benefit will cost approximately
$7.3 million per year. Again, I would urge members to vote in favour of this to
allow us to increase the enhancements.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With reference to the bill, I think it is pretty straightforward, clause 1,
to increase senior benefits and the provision here for it.
I just have a question for the minister. Maybe when she does her second
reading in a few minutes, because I am not sure if we have any other speakers on
this, she might want to comment. I was wondering if she could just elaborate,
when she wraps up second reading. "Clause 2 of the bill would amend
subsection 68(1) of the Act..." - that we brought in last year -
"...by adding a new regulatory paragraph (
i) that would permit the making
of new tax credits, rebates and deemed overpayments of tax by regulation."
Would the minister comment on that? I will give the minister a chance, when
she gets a copy there. If the minister did not bring any briefing notes, or
copies of the legislation on the bill, we can provide her.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I was just waiting. I wanted the minister to have a copy of
the bill when I was making the points so I would not have to make the point over
again, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Just for the point, I heard that he could not get to buy a ticket. They were
all sold out on the weekend.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I think he is trying to delay passage of Bill 6.
I just ask the minister, in clause 2 of the bill there, "...amend
subsection 68(1) of the Act by adding a new regulatory paragraph (
i) that would
permit the making of new tax credits, rebates and deemed overpayments of tax by
regulation." Deemed overpayments of tax by regulation, would the minister
clarify that statement there?
I don't have any other questions on this. I would just like to get a
clarification now, if I could. If not, if the minister wanted to - maybe when I
look closer at the bill. I just went through it quickly. The bill was passed
last year. If she does not really have a clarification, in Committee I would
certainly would hope to get just a clarification of that point.
MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now she will close debate on this
bill.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My understanding is that it would allow us to collect - in many cases we
actually do overpay in as much as we have the wrong salary information. If we
find out, through an auditing process, that the salary is above the $20,000 mark
and the tail off should have occurred, then we have the ability to recollect.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: This is a specific amendment, so it has to be relative
to this amendment. That is why it is there.
Yes, we can do it, but it is specific to this particular amendment because it
is in relation to this bill.
MR. SULLIVAN: I understood the provision, they would collect any
overpayments (inaudible). I was just wondering if there was something -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, that is my understanding, that it is for
overpayments as it relates to this amendment.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, as it relates to the basic increase. Because it is
being made retroactively, any other ones that would now constitute -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: The retroactive ones would have been for a lower tail
off. Remember, it started at $12,000 and tailed off. This one now raises the bar
up to $14,000. So, what we would have to do is go back specifically as it
relates to this change and give us the ability to collect. We would not collect
it, of course; we would not collect it for last year, because the old one was in
place last year. The amendment had to be here specifically for the change in
this. That is my understanding, from the $200 to $300.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Only insomuch as sometimes we get our information late.
If we are doing our audit, we are doing our audits later, so therefore we would
have to retroactively collect it.
MR. SULLIVAN: If there is any further (inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Sure, definitely.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read
a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.
(Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 10,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation
Act. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER: Order 10.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor
Corporation Act." (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of Bill 13 is to provide an amendment to the Liquor Corporation
Act, which would facilitate the provision of preferential commission markup
rates to small brewers.
Right now, NLC imposes a commission fee on all beer and wine sold in the
Province. Currently, the commission fee imposed on beer is the same for all
breweries, regardless of the size. The intent of this legislation is that it
will give the Liquor Corporation the ability to set a preferential rate for
small brewers, which will encourage the retention and the expansion of this
particular small craft brewery industry. The new rates will be set up the board
of directors of NLC.
There has been a significant amount of consultation as it relates to his
proposed amendment. We have also had a fair bit of representation from the
industry as well, including the major breweries. This is something that has been
ongoing for quite a while. As you know, we have local wineries as well as local
breweries in the Province. This is as much an effort to encourage the growth of
that industry and recognize specifically the fact that it is made here in
Newfoundland, doing it right here in Newfoundland. We would like the ability to
give the NLC the opportunity to provide a preferential rate. Again, this would
allow them to do appropriate markups on the sale of beer, wine and spirits, but
also to facilitate the provision of preferential rates to the small breweries
and the cottage wineries.
We have included the three cottage wineries: Markland Cottage Winery, Flynn's
Winery; Weil Winery, and also Quidi Vidi Brewing Company. They have all made
separate requests to government to reduce the commission rates on their products
so that they can have a preferential rate. As you know, they do not have the
same financial backing of the larger industry.
Again, it is something that we see as good for Newfoundland, good for rural
and urban Newfoundland, and one that we would encourage support of.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess, looking at (inaudible) authority, it sets the rate of gross profit
under the old act, or before the amendment, as it currently stands right now. It
says: "38.
(3) The rate of gross profit for the purposes of subsection
(2) may be determined by the board." Of course, that is still going to be done.
It is still going to be determined by the board, but, I say to them, it sets
different rates or different types or classes of beer or based upon different
quantities of beer produced by a brewer.
For the purpose of subsection (2), and just for clarification, in subsection
(2) it makes reference to - that is in the act there. That is not in the bill
but it is in the act. In other words, whatever it may be the gross profit
accruing to the corporation cannot be less because of this, basically.
Subsection (2) states: "A brewer, before the delivery of beer, shall
collect and forward together with the monthly return referred to in
section 35,
in respect of beer to be delivered by him or her either by sale or by gift under
a licence issued under this Act or the Liquor Control Act to persons
other than the corporation, an amount equal to the gross profit which would have
accrued to the corporation if the beer had been sold by the corporation."
In other words, it is still going to maintain, I would assume because of
that, at least the same gross profit back to the corporation. You cannot alter
that. What was the main reason for doing this, setting different rates for
different types of classes of beer? Were there some problems in the functioning
of the system right now or some were not necessarily included in the umbrella -
I think the minister made some reference to that - or is it a combination of
both? Does the minister hear what I am asking?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: There are two pieces to what you are asking. First of
all, the group we are talking about here probably represents about 1 per cent of
the sales. I think there is a sense that even if you were to reduce the rates,
the market would either increase in that 1 per cent or we would get it in the
other pieces of the industry. So, it is not meant to decrease the actual
profits.
In the other piece, what you are talking -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, it would maintain it but there is no belief that
you would lose profits by doing this. In fact, you would probably increase them
because it would be more attractive. The reason why they are asking is simply
because, as I said in my
preamble, they have a much more difficult time. They do
not have the size of the two larger industries, particularly the breweries that
we are talking about. Even in discussions with them, they are fairly confident
that it will not do a lot to impact their market or their sales, and it will not
impact our sales as it relates to profits to the Liquor Corporation.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) right?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: The board -
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, it was a flat rate. That is the difference. Before
it was a flat rate - this gives -
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Right. This amendment provides NLC with the opportunity
to set preferential rates. Previously that was not there, it was a flat rate
across the board. So that is the big piece to this amendment.
MR. SULLIVAN: Provided it doesn't affect the gross profit, because that
is what subsection (2) says (inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes. What they have told us, when we asked about it,
because they assume less than 1 per cent of the market they are not in any way
worried that it will impact on their profits at all. In fact, they believe there
will be - you know how the balance goes, you decrease one and raise the other.
So that is not a concern.
I move closure for second reading.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,"
read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on
tomorrow. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 13, Mr. Speaker.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act to Amend The Aquaculture
Act." (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is just a simple change. It was a technical omission when the act was
first drawn up. The current definition of aquaculture means the cultivation of
aquatic plants and animals. The definition did not include, when it was drafted,
the deployment of equipment such as cages and stat collectors and such. What we
are asking to do is change the definition to include the putting of nets and
such in the water before aquaculturists get their permit because under the
current act an individual could go out and set gear. We did not have any
legislation governing that. We just want to change the definition to include
that
section as well.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess it was defined initially, aquaculture, in the general sense of what
aquaculture is. I did not get a chance to go through the act actually. I am just
substituting. I am not sure, when it gets to committee, if our critic has any
questions. I did not go back to the previous act. I just read the definition
here. The minister indicates that it is just making it more inclusive now. That
if you are going to do aquaculture you must have certain
definitions of gear to
participate in aquaculture. These are going to get defined under the act now
because there can be different
interpretations of what constitutes acceptable
aquacultural equipment or gear to use in the aquacultural industry.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. REID: Thank you.
You are somewhat right. What has happened in the past is that before we had
an opportunity, us and the federal government, to investigate the applicant or
the application for an aquaculture permit, the applicant has gone and set his
gear in the water prior to being given permission. We had nothing under the act
to prevent him from doing that. It has caused some trouble for fishers and
others. We want to be able to amend the act so that it would include the placing
of the gear in the water prior to them getting the permit. Basically, that is
all that is to it; so that we can have some control over the placing of gear in
the water before the permit is issued.
MR. SPEAKER: There being no further debate, is it the pleasure of this
House that this bill be now read a second time?
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act," read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.
(Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, that the hon. the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board to move: That This House Approves in General the
Budgetary Policy of the Government. The Budget Speech.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, indeed I do have something to say about the budget this year. I have the
Budget document in my hand.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: You are not the Premier anymore. What are you now? You are
not the Government House Leader. You are the deputy premier. The Member for
Bonavista North says: I love this Budget. Not as much as he does, I can
guarantee you that.
I am going to make a few comments right from the Budget here now.
MR. TULK: Jack, you would love (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Not if it looked like you, I say to the Member for
Bonavista North. I would not like a little puppy if it looked like you.
He is only trying to distract me from the real issues.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) like you.
MR. J. BYRNE: She loved me. A mother's love is a blessing.
Mr. Speaker, on page 3 in the Budget, it says: "This reduced net
out-migration to 2,077, its lowest level in almost a decade and well below the
average annual historical level of 3,750 in the 20 year period prior to early
1990s." They are talking about the out-migration and the impact that this
would have on this budget. I am curious to see what the numbers are going to be
for this year, when the new numbers come out, when we see family after family
leaving in droves from rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It says here: "Exports continue to account for over half of growth,
driven in 2000 by the first year of full production at Hibernia..." Again,
what does that really mean for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? When you
talk about Hibernia, we have the money that is being made on that, the revenues
that we are taking in here - not nearly what they should be, by the way.
Clawbacks, equalization, are all being impacted. For every buck we make on
Hibernia the federal government - the Liberal Government in Ottawa, the cousins
of the crowd on the other side - is taking back eighty cents. Pardon?
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Trinity North asked me if I read this. Yes,
I say to the Member for Trinity North, I have read this; as he can see with
certain things highlighted. I would say he had difficulty reading it, Mr.
Speaker, because there would not have been enough pictures in it for him to
understand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. J. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, you talk about -
AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, right.
Mr. Speaker, also it talks about our fiscal framework. Now, this is the one
that I am really curious about. It says -
MR. TULK: Jack, listen (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bonavista North, he is throwing
across accusations. He is inferring things across this House of Assembly, but
when the real story comes out and he wises up to what is going on - he may even
have a little conversation to the person next to him - he may realize and
understand what is going on to the person to his left. So maybe you should have
a conversation with her.
Anyway, our fiscal framework, Mr. Speaker.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: She is not there right now. I cannot refer to people who
are not in the House. I am not suppose to do that. I am sure she will return.
Ask her, she will explain it to you.
Anyway, our fiscal framework; I am reading from the Budget: "With the
strong provincial and national economies in 2000, we will slightly better our
deficit target for the year just ending. At $32.7 million, the deficit for
200-01 is $2 million lower than forecast last year." Now, let's get to
the real figures. I remember standing up in this House of Assembly last year,
when I was the critic for finance, and saying that the real deficit to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador was over $200 million, I say to the deputy
premier. They said it was $34 million last year, I believe they said. This year
they are saying it is $32.7 million. Last year when we said that it was over
$200 million, what happened? Who confirmed it for us? Who confirmed it, I say to
the deputy premier? No other than the Auditor General, who came back and said it
was, I believe, a $221 million deficit last year. The real figures.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: You talk about fancy bookkeeping, Mr. Speaker. Last year it
was $221 million. Also, further to that, we had the government's own auditor
come out and agree with the Auditor General, that it was $221 million. Yet, they
are trying to led the people to believe that last year it was $221 million and
this year $32.7 million. Now, I am saying that the real figures - and I will say
it here again on May 7, is it? The real deficit to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador - and I am sure it will be confirmed again next year by the Auditor
General and by the Province's own auditor - is $300 million; over $300 million
again this year. That is with respect to this year's budget. Talk about fancy
bookkeeping, playing with the books, and doctoring the books, Mr. Speaker. I
suppose it is what we would refer to as creative bookkeeping. To put it
politely, creative bookkeeping.
MR. TULK: ( Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bonavista North, he should be
careful in the words he is using.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about this year's budget and talk
about the policies that have been stolen or taken, and rightly so, from our
policy manual in the last election. In the last election we made certain
statements that were ridiculed, laughed at, said it was impossible, could not be
done. Where are we going to get the money, Mr. Speaker? That is the question.
Where are we going to get the money? And, what happens? Let me tell you a few
things now.
I will go through this policy manual, this 1999 policy document: Policy That
Works! Policies that the Liberal government of the day said were impossible to
do. I will just refer to a few here now. It says here: "A PC Government
will immediately reduce the personal income tax rate by 5 percentage
points..." Now that is what we said. What did they say during the election?
Can't be done. Where are you going to get the money? Impossible to do. What
programs are you going to cut? What programs are you going to cut in schools?
What hospital programs are you going to cut? What did they do, Mr. Speaker? I
think within sixty or ninety days, after they formed the government, they
brought in a policy in the budget that year saying: We are going to cut income
tax. They ridiculed us; it couldn't be done.
The Premier of the Province, the current Premier of the Province - there have
been so many in the past six months that it is hard to keep track. Anyway, the
current Premier said that what he is going to do is, adopt all our policies
within the next two years and then we would have nothing to do. Now, that will
tell you want kind of brain thrust that crowd has on the other side of the
House.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: What?
MR. TULK: He is trying to make you happy.
MR. J. BYRNE: He is trying to make me happy?
The problem here is that the Liberal government are void of ideas. They
cannot come up with any themselves. Criticize us for our policies and then go
and implement them. Now, what does that say?
AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying we are getting desperate (inaudible)?
MR. J. BYRNE: I will tell you what I am saying: they are starting to wise
up. They know the writing is on the wall. The next thing is, you are going to
hear a few of them say to us: Boys, I think you have good policies. You people
have good policies. I think I can support those policies. I have to support
them. I think I am going to have to walk across the House to help you support
them. I wonder when that may happen? I wonder.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is now the recommended nighttime reading (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, I would say. It is being distributed that there
are members on that side now going to start saying: Yes, good policies. We have
no ideas on this side of the House of Assembly.
That is what they are going to say over there, and then they are going to
cross to us.
MR. HEDDERSON: They read every press release that we have put out.
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, every press release.
MR. HEDDERSON: I know that for a fact.
MR. J. BYRNE: Talking about the press releases being read, I say to the
Member for -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, they are throwing back and forth across the
House about our press releases, so obviously they must read them. They are very
concerned about them. Of course, from our press releases we develop our
policies.
Here is another one. Just listen to this. FOR THE RECORD - in our policy
manuel - "A PC Government will eliminate the payroll tax..." Again in
the last election, and the former Minister of Fisheries is the one who said this
- the current Premier, the Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Health,
all of these people are going to cut the payroll tax. Where are you going to get
the money?
If you are going cut the payroll tax, you have to cut programs. Again, you
have to cut school programs, you have to cut hospital programs and services, you
have to cut works, services and transportation and all of these things. Again,
what happened? As soon as the election was over and the first Budget came down,
they said they are going to go towards cutting the payroll tax.
We said, at the time it was implemented - when this was brought in, by the
way, I was in private business, and you talk about a regressive tax, a tax on
jobs. That is the kind of idea that this crowd on the other side of the House
comes up with, regressive taxes. Now they are here, years later, trying to
destroy or get rid of the damage, I suppose, that they have done, and try to
smooth it over. They are saying: We are cutting the payroll tax. What more do
you want us to do? They implemented the payroll tax in the first place.
Now, let's keep her going here and see what is on the go. Labour Relations
Policy: "A PC Government will increase the minimum wage after commissioning
a review to determine what the appropriate level should be." Again, during
the last election: it cannot be done. Why? Where are you getting the money? It
is too hard on small businesses, and all these types of things. What did they
do? I think it was last year or the year before - since the last election - they
increased the minimum wage. I think it is up to $5.50 now. I do not know how
people can live on it, to be honest with you. Again, it should probably be
looked at to be increased somewhat more.
FOR THE RECORD: - under Children and Their Families - here is one. I cannot
believe this. "A PC Government will immediately establish an Office of the
Children's Advocate." Where did we hear that lately, I wonder? Did you
hear that anywhere lately? They are going to establish a Child Advocate. I think
it was in this year's Budget. Was that in this Budget? No they could not do
that two years ago, another PC policy taken -
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: It is starting to get frightening. You are starting to
think like us.
MR. J. BYRNE: Starting to think like you crowd? If I started to think
like you crowd over there, I say to the Member for Trinity North - I am so glad,
when I was Mayor down in Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, that we put guard
rails all around those cliffs down around Logy Bay so no more cars could go
over. I appreciate - at least look forward to - the foresight that I had at the
time. Think like you crowd? Not likely. You guys are starting to think like this
side over here. The proof is in the pudding, in the Budget here, the policies
here. Technically what you could have easily done was, just take our policy
manual, rip the cover off and insert it into a red cover. Done! Then you would
be doing something.
I am happy that you are doing these things. It is about time. It is like the
former Premier, Joseph Smallwood, used to do years and years ago, thirty or
forty years ago, whenever it was, repeat, repeat, repeat and it sinks in. It
takes a lot more repetition for it to sink into you crowd over there, I say.
Also, "A PC Government will immediately establish a Child and Youth
Secretariat..." I would imagine that is next on the list, is it, for that
crowd over there?
AN HON. MEMBER: Just ask Minister Kelly.
MR. J. BYRNE: Minister Kelly?
AN HON. MEMBER: The Youth Advisory Committee.
MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes. There is more than this here. I have so much here.
AN HON. MEMBER: She is putting one together.
MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education
is saying - where is it?
AN HON. MEMBER: Just read it to her again. She is not listening.
MR. J. BYRNE: "A PC Government will immediately establish a Child
and Youth Secretariat...", which I understand now that the minister of the
new department is looking at, seriously looking at. She must have read our
policy manual there a few weeks ago.
Here is another one. It has finally started sinking in. Remember when the
former Premier Tobin was there, the former Premier Clyde Wells was there, and
the present.... They go out and come up with these ideas right out of the blue,
on the spur of the moment, out of the Blue Book, a policy, Mr. Speaker, no
forethought given to it.
"A PC Government will mandate the Department of Education to consult
widely within the community at large and among stakeholders in the educational
field...." Where? What did they do?
AN HON. MEMBER: Like they did with language arts.
MR. J. BYRNE: It is easy to say, if you would go out and do it. There is
no point in listening, having all these public meetings and not listening.
I attended a public meeting on education in my district last week, last
Wednesday night. I had the school board down. The same meeting, word for word,
if somebody had a microphone on it, or a tape recorder, as two years ago, almost
the exact same thing, the same comments made two years ago. They came up with
this grand scheme to do certain things and now all out the window. If you are
going to be having these meetings, public meetings, public consultations, it is
a waste of time if you are not going to listen to the advice that has been given
by these individuals.
Under Justice: "A PC government is committed to two strong police forces
in this province - the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary...." How often do we ask in this House of Assembly that the
RNC, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, be given the respect that they
deserve?
Here they are, a police force that went to negotiations with the government
and an agreement, a contract, was signed with those people and then it was
cancelled. A certain rate increase cancelled just like that. No respect. Now
they are coming up - we have asked for it many, many times that at least they
give them binding arbitration. It could not be done. Can't do that, Mr.
Speaker. What is happening now? Binding arbitration for the RNC. I hope that if
and when they get an agreement on their salaries, or whatever, that it is not
cancelled again, torn apart and thrown out the window like you did the last
time. This Administration is not to be trusted. They are not to be trusted.
For the record: "A PC Government will not force amalgamation on any
municipality against the wishes of its residents." We said that two years
ago, over two years ago, but the members on that side of the House were
wishy-washy at the time, weren't they? Wishy-washy. They will not back us up
and say that; but no, what has happened now since the new Premier came in place?
What has he said? There will be no forced amalgamation.
MR. SULLIVAN: What?
MR. J. BYRNE: That is what he said.
MR. SULLIVAN: Who said that?
MR. J. BYRNE: The current Premier. No forced amalgamation, therefore
adopting another one of our policies. It just goes on and on and on. Let me see
if I can find a few more here now.
Under Water Export in our policy manual, over two years ago, I say to the
Member for Trinity North, it says: "A PC Government will introduce
legislation to ensure all fresh water exported from Newfoundland and Labrador is
first fully processed in Newfoundland and Labrador..."
At the time when we first brought this up, the Member for St. John's South,
of course, was ridiculed again, belittled. Foolishness! The Free Trade Agreement
has no impact on this; but finally, after many, many, many times brought up in
this House of Assembly, public issues, public meetings, all of these things, the
government backed off and agreed with us that there should not be exporting of
bulk water out of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am a bit
concerned about this one though, I have to say. The current Premier gets elected
as Premier by 600 delegates or something at the convention - I think the former
Minister of Fisheries over there is quite familiar with that - and he comes back
out and makes the statement: Maybe we should have another look at this. They
might have been better off if they had elected the former Minister of Fisheries.
I do not think he would have made as many mistakes publicly as the current
Premier.
Also Accountable Government. It says here, "FOR THE RECORD: A PC
Government will release to the public, within 30 days of receiving it, every
government-commissioned report by a panel, review committee, task force,
consultation process, or commission..." The current Premier says that, and
he campaigned on having straight answers and real solutions. He campaigned as
becoming Premier of the Province on accountability, being open and forthright. I
see that he even has the bottle of water there. That is not a problem.
He talked about being open and forthright to the public of Newfoundland and
Labrador, but the first time that he had the chance to be open, he did not do
anything about it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: No, he didn't, he wouldn't. We are still looking for
information from him on different issues.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that? Who are you talking about?
MR. J. BYRNE: The current Premier.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Premier Grimes.
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Well, there is quite a bit. The Member for Trinity North,
Mr. Speaker, would like to know what else he has to do. Well, here is one thing,
I will tell you, you have to do, start giving a bit more respect to the former
Minister of Fisheries, and support him like he supported you. You might end up
doing it yet. You may end up having to support him yet. I would not rule that
out if I were you.
AN HON. MEMBER: I already (inaudible) that.
MR. J. BYRNE: Did you? Okay.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the former, former, former Premier, Clyde Wells - PC
government in power, we had a Child Advocate. We talked about an Ombudsman. That
former, former, former Premier destroyed that office - scrap it, get rid of it,
don't need it. Now in our policy manual, it says, "A PC Government will
immediately reinstate an Office of the Ombudsman..."
MR. SULLIVAN: But we haven't seen the legislation yet.
MR. J. BYRNE: No, we have not seen the legislation.
What do you think is in the Budget this year? Well, they are going to
reinstate the Ombudsman. Rightly so. We have to have people standing up. We have
a job to do as MHAs and we do it well, most of us; at least on this side of the
House we all do it well. I am not sure about that side of the House though.
Here is one - and this government has been seriously lacking on this issue,
on this topic - when the PC government was in power, they brought in the Public
Tender Act, because of the shenanigans that went on with the previous Liberal
government back in the 1960s and early 1970s. A few years ago when the former,
former, former Premier and a few of the Cabinet ministers here decided that they
would circumvent the Public Tender Act, not honor the Public Tender Act, and
then award a contract to Trans City about the construction of hospitals in
Newfoundland and Labrador, the contractors who did not get the work took them to
court. What happened? Four-and-a-half million dollars later, the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador had to pay out - it was proven in civil court that the
government broke their own legislation. So what did they do? They changed the
legislation to destroy the Public Tender Act.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. J. BYRNE: And I was just going to give the member some compliments
over there.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. J. BYRNE: It's by leave?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I got it. Thank you.
Anyway, they brought in legislation to destroy the Public Tender Act, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. EFFORD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. J. BYRNE: He told me I had leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister - the hon. the Member for Port de
Grave.
MR. EFFORD: I wish I were. I withdrew leave and I am a Member of this
House.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to participate for a few moments in the Budget debate. We started this
session of the House on March 13 or thereabouts, and we started off with the
Speech from the Throne. Mr. Speaker, I made some notes on that particular day
when we got copies of the Speech from the Throne because it said, the
Lieutenant-Governor speaking the words written for him by the government
ministers, "...My Government is setting out on a clear work plan which will
affirm public confidence as it completes the mandate given in the General
Election of 1999."
Now, Mr Speaker, I have not seen a great deal of public confidence in this
government in recent times. You only have to listen to the public airways. You
have to be cognizant of what is being said on the streets of Newfoundland and
Labrador. You had to be aware of what happened down in Twillingate this past
weekend.
AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?
MR. H. HODDER: When had a little fund raiser for the Progressive
Conservative Party in Twillingate on Friday evening, Mr. Speaker, the place just
sold out. It sold right out. In fact, the largest public building in Twillingate
had been engaged, other than a building such as the church, that kind of
facility, and it was filled to capacity. It was so large that the Progressive
Conservative Party brought along a banner and there just wasn't space
available in the room to be able to hang this particular banner. So what the
people down there did, they hung it outside the building.
MR. SULLIVAN: Where was that?
MR. H. HODDER: In Twillingate this past weekend.
Mr. Speaker, I started off with my few comments here talking about the second
paragraph in the Speech from the Throne where it starts off talking about
affirming public confidence in this government. Well, I think that what the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador have done, they have affirmed the lack of
public confidence in this particular government.
Mr. Speaker, I will, if I have time, get through the entire speech. It says
here, the third paragraph - this is a very interesting paragraph - it says:
"The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are entering a period of
change..." They are entering a change alright. They certainly are. They are
entering a period of change when the PC Party can go out in Twillingate and fill
a hall to capacity and have to tell people: No, we are sorry, we cannot give you
tickets because the space is not available. When we can oversell and we have to
tell people that, no, no, no, you have to wait until the next time we have a
public function in Twillingate, Mr. Speaker, I would say the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador are anxious. This is incorrect here because it says
they are entering a period of change. It should have read, we are anxious for a
period of change. That certainly is what we should be talking about.
Mr. Speaker, the fourth paragraph in this particular Speech from the Throne
says: "We will keep that trust with a plan of action that delivers
results." I will repeat that again. The government's Speech from the
Throne said, fourth paragraph - I have dealt with the first three paragraphs.
The first paragraph is welcome to the Legislature. That was a really interesting
paragraph. That was made up of nine words. The second paragraph said they were
going to affirm public confidence. The third paragraph said Newfoundland and
Labrador is entering a period of change. The fourth paragraph, in its entirety,
and I will read it again. "We will keep that trust with a plan of action
that delivers results." Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask myself the question:
Results for whom? Who are the results for ?
Lets talk about the hospitals where we know we have a shortage of nurses.
Lets talk about the fact that there are huge waiting lists. The other day I
asked some questions in the House which the now Minister of Finance and the
former Minister of Health found really funny. In fact she made fun of the, I do
not know if it was the questions or the questioner, or maybe both, and she
thought it was ridiculous of me to be asking questions that dealt with the
crowded conditions at the maternity ward in the hospital here, the Health
Sciences Centre. As a matter of fact, since then there have been calls to Open
Line saying that what we were saying here was true; that having four mothers,
four babies and an average of three visitors, in one room measuring fourteen by
twenty is unacceptable. We know that at least two other articles have appeared
in The Telegram . Mr. Speaker, it is a real issue. We have a plan of
action that delivers results. We deliver a crowded room with four beds, four
mothers and, of course -
MR. HEDDERSON: You are playing on words. Delivers! Delivers! (Inaudible)
deliver babies.
MR. H. HODDER: As my friend, my colleague here from Harbour Main-Whitbourne,
indicates, the word deliver here has a lot of connotations when we are talking
about the issue of the maternity ward at the Health Sciences Centre. So, deliver
results for who?
Then of course, we talk about the shortage of nurses. Mr. Speaker, certainly
we have to be very cognizant of the fact that we could do with a lot more nurses
in our hospitals in Newfoundland and Labrador. Then I wrote down here on that
very afternoon; I said: Ask the family who has waited for more than an hour for
an ambulance. On the day we were having this there was an incident that happened
whereby a family had been waiting for a very long time for an ambulance to
arrive. Or, for example, the fact that you could have a lady sent from Grand
Falls to the Health Sciences Centre, and when she arrives by ambulance to the
Health Sciences Centre after having a heart attack is told: No, we do not have a
bed for you. She waits for forty minutes out in the ambulance only to be told:
We are going to transfer you to another hospital. That happened to a family
member of mine only a short while ago.
AN HON. MEMBER: She survived?
MR. H. HODDER: Yes, she did. She most certainly did.
Mr Speaker, talk about delivering results! Talk to those people I have met in
the last weeks who have family members who are in hospital. I spent a lot of
time in the last few weeks at St. Clare's and I know a little bit about how
that facility is operating, at least in certain wards down there.
Mr. Speaker, we should talk about delivering results, talk to those teachers
that have to deliver a program when they have inadequate teaching materials.
What does that mean for the quality of education in Newfoundland and Labrador,
when we send out a curriculum guideline and we have teachers going all over the
place trying to find resources? We have some wonderful people in the Department
of Education who come up with various guidelines for curriculum but then we have
to have teachers who are photocopying material. We do not have adequate supports
for the curriculum that is set out and then, of course, we also do not have
adequate supports for children who have special needs.
Mr. Speaker, there probably will never be enough support for all of the
children in the school system. We recognize that, but when we listen to what
parents are saying and what the school system is saying certainly, I believe we
can do a lot better than we are doing.
Going on with the fourth paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, I said
here: Ask the people who live in rural Newfoundland. I just happen to have been
in Marystown for the weekend, visiting my mother, and I was told that just this
past week there are another five or six families who have moved from the Burin
Peninsula and are on their way to Ontario or to Western Canada. So, talk about
the people who have had to leave Newfoundland, primarily from rural
Newfoundland, to find jobs in other parts of the country, or the U.S., or
elsewhere.
When we talk about people who are unemployed, we think about the people in
Marystown at the shipyard, where a few years ago there were as many as 1,100
people employed. I note that the member from the Liberal side of the House has
put a private members' motion on the paper for Wednesday - the second such
motion that she has put forward in the last year or so. There was one last year
with a similar theme, again asking the federal government to allocate some
monies to make sure that we have an adequate shipbuilding policy for this
country.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly have no hesitation in supporting that kind of
motion. Of course, we also would like to remind the House that last fall we had
an election and the former Premier left his seat here and said he wanted to go
back to Ottawa because he was going to do something about some of those issues.
Well, we have not heard much from that Premier on those issues since then.
Basically, we have not had much action.
When we talk about the first page of the Speech from the Throne, we do not
have much here that indicates anything that would make the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador very happy or very content, and certainly not much by
way of reasons why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should have any
confidence at all in this particular government.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to go to the third page. On the third page there is
an interesting sentence. It says, "A key focus of My Government..." -
again the Lieutenant-Governor is delivering the Speech - "...in this
Session of the House of Assembly will be to create a greater level of trust,
openness and accountability." We have been asking questions now for almost
two months. It is just about two months since we came into this House, minus the
few days that we were off for Easter. We are all waiting for that greater level
of trust. We are all waiting for that greater level of openness and
accountability. Every single day we, on this side of the House, ask questions,
and every single day we are amazed with how effective the government is in not
giving answers.
We have had to pry the government to get information on various issues. We
had one minister stand in his place on Thursday, for example, in debate, and I
quote who said, "I want to set the record straight, that there is no unsafe
drinking water in this Province. In fact, we have good quality water in this
Province."
Mr. Speaker, that happened to be the Minister Responsible for the
Environment. Then, a few days later, we had the Premier standing in his place
with a Ministerial Statement saying he is going to appoint a task force to look
at all of the issues surrounding water quality in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is a case of where we have to ask ourselves exactly what is this
government doing when one minister stands up and says one thing and three days
later the Premier finds i