Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 7 May 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 19)
2002-05-07
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 7, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIV No. 19
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our Routine Proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to
the gallery today thirty-five Grade 8 students from the North Shore Collegiate
in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde. They are accompanied by their teacher,
Joan Kelly, Bill Drover, Cindy Kennedy, Peter Taylor and teacher aids, Bonnie
Parsons and Mary Doyle, and bus driver Carl Hudson.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to welcome to the House today eighteen Grade
7 students from Dunne Academy, St. Mary's, in the District of Placentia &
St. Mary's, and they are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Marjorie Gibbons.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This past weekend it was my pleasure to attend the 5 th Annual
Western Newfoundland Heritage Fair which was held at Sir Wilfred Grenfell
College in Corner Brook.
The Heritage Fair is a celebration of Canadian History and Culture and is
based on the idea that students learn more effectively when they are actively
involved in seeking out the living history around them and when they develop
their own way of communicating what they find.
Organizers of the Fair estimate that approximately 1,000 visitors viewed the
more than 150 displays prepared by the 270 participating students.
Based upon the display's attractiveness and the knowledge demonstrated by
the students, judges will now select one display to be entered into the National
Heritage Fair which will be held for the first time in Newfoundland in St. John's,
June 7-14.
This year' Patron of the Fair was Mr. Trevor Bennett, a former MHA for the
District of St. Barbe and a former Mayor of the Town of Steady Brook. In
addition to his record of public service, Mr. Bennett was instrumental in
conceiving the idea of a Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Tree and overseeing
its carving and erection.
Amongst the many displays at the Fair, Newfoundland and Labrador's many
historical figures, including Nurse Myra Bennett, Mr. Bennett's mother, played
a prominent part.
I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the
many students and teachers who took
part in this Fair and who are increasing
awareness of our diverse history and culture.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the entire production
team associated with Etcetera 16 , a musical production of students
attending Mount Pearl Intermediate and Mount Pearl Senior High schools.
Etcetera 16 opens tonight at the Mount Pearl Glacier and over the next
five evenings, it is anticipated that as many as 5,000 friends, family and
visitors will patronize this wonderful celebration of Mount Pearl's youth. In
addition, approximate 2,000 primary and elementary children will attend the
matinees.
The fact that as many as 7,000 patrons will attend the various performances
is, in itself, a testament to the shows quality. Indeed, Mr. Speaker,
Etcetera 16 , with its total cast of more than 200 students exalts and
celebrates the creative artistry of Mount Pearl's youth.
Special congratulations are due, Mr. Speaker, to the musical 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 the music and choreographing the various selections.
Mr. Speaker, as a former administrator at Mount Pearl Junior High, I can
attest to the deserving accolades for which the Etcetera Shows have become
known. Carol Goulding is not just an outstanding teacher; he has the rare
ability to capture the imagination of the teenage mind and to inspire them to
strive for personal excellence.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this hon. House would join me in
offering congratulations to the teachers, the entire cast and to the many
volunteers associated with this year's production.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a fourth year visual arts student
from Marystown, whose work is being showcased in an exhibition at Sir Wilfred
Grenfell College in Corner Brook.
Gino Collins of Marystown is one of fourteen emerging artists from around the
Province taking
part in the Doodlist Manifesto , an exhibition that
features works from the fourth year visual arts students at the college.
This exhibition, Mr. Speaker, includes painting, drawing, photography,
printmaking, sculpture, video animation and book works that is based on the
themes of nature, landscape and the environment; a sense of place; and the
figure and sense of self.
Mr. Speaker, this exhibition continues at the gallery at Grenfell College in
Corner Brook until June 8 and there will be a public reception for the artists
on May 11 from 2:00-4:00 p.m.
I congratulate Gino on being part of this exhibition and I wish him further
success in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Friday, May 3, I had the opportunity to attend the high school prom at
Laval in Placentia. I would just like to take the opportunity to bring forward
to the House what a wonderful night of celebration that took place at Unity Parc
Arena in Placentia. Approximately 500 people gathered to look back on thirteen
years of schooling for over eighty graduates. An immense amount of hard work
went into turning a normally cold arena into a warm, pleasant banquet hall with
all the trimmings.
I would just like to take the opportunity today to congratulate the
principal, Mr. Len Hickey, all the teachers and staff, parents and guardians who
were involved in having this wonderful celebration. I would like to also
congratulate Mrs. Catherine Kelly, who was the guest speaker for the evening, a
former teacher, who brought some great insight and gave some great advice to the
students at Laval who are heading off into a new era in their lives.
I would like to take the opportunity today to ask all members to join with me
in sending special congratulations to the Level III students of Laval High
School in Placentia on an exemplary night. I certainly want to wish them well as
they move forward in life. Whatever we can do to help them along, we will be
there for them, as all legislators, I am sure, here in the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today to congratulate a Carbonear native, Physicist
Davis Earle, for his groundbreaking discovery of the mystery of subatomic
particles called neutrinos.
Mr. Earle, the son of Captain Guy Earle, one of the chief figures in this
Province's fishing industry, is among a group of scientists with the Sudbury
Neutrinos Observatory in Ontario that have discovered proof that neutrinos
actually have a mass, something that was unknown for the last thirty years of
study.
Mr. Earle is a former student of Memorial University and the University of
British Columbia, and was named a Rhodes Scholar in 1960. He went on to earn a
doctorate in nuclear physics and had worked with the Atomic Energy of Canada as
a nuclear physicist before his current position and now lives in Deep River,
Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, this scientific achievement comes after extensive work on this
neutrino project since the late 1980s and this discovery is a significant
achievement on the study of such an important building block of our universe.
On behalf of all Members of this House of Assembly, I congratulate Dr. Earle
and his fellow scientists on this discovery.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege today to rise to
congratulate the under-seventeen women's table tennis team from Bishop White
All-Grade School in Port Rexton on winning the gold medal in the Atlantic Table
Tennis Championship held here in St. John's on April 27 and 28. The team, Mr.
Speaker, consists of: Kayla Butler, Ashley Rex, Cathy Bartlett and Stacey Fowlow,
and were accompanied by their coaches: Barbara-Lynn Randell and Cecil Piercy.
Mr. Speaker, they earned the right to represent this Province in a provincial
competition in March of this year.
Mr. Speaker, it is worthy of note that Bishop White All-Grade School has been
active in table tennis for a number of years and, considering they only have
about 100 students at the high school level in which to pick from, this is a
significant achievement. The team is looking forward, provided they can raise
enough money, to attending the National Table Tennis Championships slated for
Laval, Quebec, in July.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating this team from Port Rexton on winning this Atlantic Province
Championship and wish them well and every success in both their fundraising
efforts and their ability to be able to go and compete at a national level with
this very small group of people which they use to pick from.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues that
this week, May 6-11, is International Youth Week.
Youth Week began in 1995 as a small grassroots movement in Canada and has
grown into an internationally recognized event. It is an occasion to honour the
talents, ideas and abilities of young people in our Province and the world over.
Mr. Speaker, as a government, we recognize the abilities of our youth and are
committed to ensuring that their voice is heard in this Province. There are
several exciting initiatives underway to realize this goal. For example, this
government remains committed to establishing the new Office of the Child and
Youth Advocate who will represent and protect the youth of this Province.
My Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education has, and will
continue, to focus on issues important to youth and their future success through
youth initiatives such as debt reduction grants, apprenticeship programs and
career counseling.
As well, Mr. Speaker, through our support of community based youth
organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Big Brothers and Sisters, Scouts and
Guides and the cadet movement along with our Community Youth Network and our
Youth Advisory Committee and the Allied Youth Program, we demonstrate our
commitment to youth and making sure they have access to services that will aid
their personal and social development.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all hon. members to join me in honoring the
outstanding contributions of the youth of Newfoundland and Labrador and to
recognize this week as International Youth Week in our Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, on this side of the House, certainly join with the minister in taking the
opportunity to congratulate the youth of our Province and indeed, the youth of
the country who partake in International Youth Week. We send our congratulations
to all the young people in our Province who partake in school and different
functions in their communities. It is a great opportunity to highlight some of
the concerns.
I listened to the minister as she talked about the things that government is
doing. We applaud any positive initiatives that are put forward by this
government, or any government for that matter, in relation to something that
helps the students and the young people of our Province. I would just like to
remind the minister that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MANNING: There are 20,000 young people in this Province who go to
school every morning hungry, and that is something that needs to be looked at.
When there is such a variety for our young people to partake in, we have
guidance counsellors who are being shared between five and six schools. We have
an ABE program that people can fund Level II and III, if they do not fund Level
I. You have to be an olympiad expert to get from Grade XII or Grade X up into
Level II and Level III.
There are a lot of things that are of concern. Student debt is crippling some
of our young people in this Province. There are a lot of issues out there. We
hope government will continue to look at those issues, and we hope that
government intends to address some of those issues that are facing our young
people in this Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Although we did not have an advanced copy of the statement, I am happy to
join in recognizing Youth Week in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I
would say, Mr. Speaker, if this government was truly concerned about the needs
of youth, they probably would have a better idea than they did not have the
other day when they were asked where the 3,000 students who had been removed
from the income support - young people between the ages of eighteen and
twenty-one -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member doesn't have leave.
MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point
of order.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that the rules allow a person on this side of the House to
respond. The first speaker gets an opportunity to speak for half the time of the
minister and the second speaker gets to speak for half the time of the second
person. Now, I had to use up some of my time to advise the minister she hadn't
provided me with an advanced copy of the statement. If the minister doesn't
want to offer leave to respond, I think she is performing a disservice to this
House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
There is no point of order.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Mines and
Energy.
Mr. Speaker, this government has done, and is continuing to do, everything
possible, everything in its power to hide the terms of the pending deal on
Voisey's Bay. In fact, this morning, four government members of the Standing
Committee on Resource voted down the Opposition's request to provide evidence
by officials of Inco to that committee on the development plans and the stage of
negotiations on Voisey's Bay.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister today is: I want to ask the
minister why the members of his government have refused an opportunity for the
Opposition, and indeed, and more importantly, the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, to have more information about a pending Voisey's Bay deal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: You are denying them information about their business
here in the Province. Shame! Shame!
AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you. Six-and-a-half hours in committee. Last
year you only spent fifteen minutes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I must say, that as a minister of the Crown appearing for the last eight
years straight before various committees of the House to defend estimates in
five departments of government, at no time have I witnessed or experienced the
functioning of a committee that occurred with respect to the Resource Committee
hearings on my department's estimates over the last two days.
Mr. Speaker, we sat in this Chamber, I sat over there Wednesday morning for
three hours which is, in the normal course of events, the maximum length of
committee hearings.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I said the normal.
There have been estimates that I have sat on. There have been departments
that I have defended estimates that have had budgets many times larger than the
department I currently have, and estimates have been passed in twenty minutes.
Estimates have been passed in half-an-hour. Estimates have been passed in an
hour. In no circumstance have I, in eight years, gone beyond three hours as the
minister defending estimates.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have sat over in that chair for two
successive days for an accumulated time of six and one-half hours defending the
estimates of the department that I am currently the minister of. As far as my
willingness to sit before the committee of the House, I am prepared to sit, and
I was prepared before, before the committee examining my department for sixty
hours if it was the thing to do.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: My department was in - me, as a minister, I was in the
hands of the Chair of that committee. I was in the hands of that full committee.
The committee dealt with the resolution that came forward, and this morning they
disposed of that resolution and I answered questions to the extent -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to take his seat.
MR. MATTHEWS: - that I was permitted under the rules and with the -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this Province isn't
interested enough to ask any questions. We, as the Official Opposition, are
interested enough to ask the questions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: The problem with the government is they do not like to be
asked the questions. That is the problem.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: Shame! A 50 per cent increase in your department and you
dispute our right to ask any questions.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, he ought to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago there was a full review
and a discussion of Husky Oil's benefits and development plans for the White
Rose field, cumulating in a report that was made public and discussed in this
House.
My question for the minister is: What is so special about Voisey's Bay that
makes it different than White Rose? Why have public disclosure or discussion on
one project and not on the other?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the first part of the
hon. member's comments, if not a question; at no time, to my knowledge, did I
display any unwillingness to answer questions. If the hon. member had been here
at 12:20 today, he would have realized that his members were still asking me
questions. I think the Vice-Chair of the committee, who sits behind him, would
indicate that I more than willingly answered the questions. As the matter of
fact, the members of the committee on your side came over and congratulated me
and shook my hand for being so willing to answer the questions that I did today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: So I say to the hon. member, just by way of clarification,
that there was no unwillingness on the minister's part to answer questions in
the House, today or at any time, with respect to my Estimates.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to get to his answer quickly.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the White Rose process, the hon. member knows that the
process, the mechanisms, the procedures for examining an offshore project as
proposed by any proponent, is handled under the auspices of a board known as the
C-NOPB. It is a board that is jointly responsible for and jointly responsive to
both levels of government, being the federal government and the provincial
government.
What we are doing with respect to the Voisey's Bay project, Mr. Speaker, is
attempting to negotiate with the company, an arrangement that will allow this
project to go forward. What we witnessed during the White Rose hearings process
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. MATTHEWS: - was not a negotiation. It was an application for a
proposal to go forward. The application, as a proposal, was examined through the
C-NOPB and the outcome is -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: - as we all know, (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: This morning, not only did the government deny the people
of this Province evidence that would be valuable, valuable to them, to their
knowledge of the pending deal on Voisey's Bay; they then shut down that
committee today. The minister shut the committee.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is: If you are so interested in
answering questions, will you tell me why that Resource Committee was shut down
at noon today?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, after six hours and twenty minutes of hearings
before the committee, the committee concluded its work this morning because it
was, in the judgment of the committee, finished with the proper and appropriate
level of examination of the Estimates of the Department of Mines and Energy. I
know of no other reason that would be in the minds of the committee members and
the Chair, who decided this morning to call a vote on my Estimates. I know of no
other reason why they would have concluded that it was time to call the vote and
pass the Estimates as presented. If there is any other reason, I would not be
aware of it. But, I would conclude that they thought - the committee thought -
by way of a 4 to 3 vote, that sufficient time had been given to examine the
Estimates of my department.
The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is this: The committee members were
discussing, in large measure, not the Estimates, not the budgetary allocations
proposed for my department for this year, and not the allocations that we spent
last year. They were wanting to talk about project negotiations that were
ongoing between government and the corporation, Inco.
The hon. member knows that we cannot, no more than he could if he were over
here, negotiate that in public.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: We have to do the negotiations with respect to the
interests of both sides and when the thing is done, one way or the other, we
will (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what a farce. What a hypocrisy this government
is. This government, who says its trademark is: It is the most open and
accountable and transparent government since Confederation. What a farce!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is: Will he agree
with the position of Deputy Premier Tulk, last spring, and agree to a full and
open debate in the House of Assembly prior to an agreement between Inco and the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and prior to such an agreement being
final and binding on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Will you agree,
Minister, to a full and open debate in this House?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member this: At what
point, if we are fortunate enough to conclude successfully the negotiation for
the development of Voisey's Bay, we will be more than happy to have a full and
free and fair and open debate before the people of this Province so that, not
only the forty-eight members who sit here, or the 200 or 300 that can sit in the
gallery, but the tens of thousands out there who have a genuine interest in this
project, will hear first-hand from this government what it is we have negotiated
proudly on their behalf, if we can do it, and what it is this project will offer
up in terms of benefits to the people of the Province. We intend to get it done
right, and if we get it done we will be happy to go out and defend it and to
offer it to the people.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this: If, by some unfortunate circumstance, we do not
successfully conclude, we will be just as happy and just as willing to explain
to the people of the Province why it is we could not get it done in the best
interest of them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province, the people of our
Province, are virtually unanimous, that there should be full and open debate in
this House of Assembly before a licence is issued and a deal is signed.
I ask you, Minister - I just cannot understand the logic - what possible
reason could there be why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not have an
opportunity to have this debated in this House of Assembly before our ore is
shipped to Manitoba and Ontario? What are you trying to hide, Minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are indeed hiding, or attempting to hide, nothing. On the contrary, we
will be happy to expose everything to the people of the Province at what point
we have something to conclude. The fact of the matter is this: Until we conclude
the negotiations successfully, any individual parts of it that may be signed off
on, or that may be finished in terms of the negotiation, means virtually
nothing. Until we have an agreement on everything, there is actually and
factually, and in reality, an agreement on nothing.
Today, we have nothing to put to the people of the Province. We hope that we
will have something to put before them, and if we have something to put before
them we will put it before them on the basis that there will be the widest
possible level of debate, the widest possible level of dissemination of
information, so that the people of the Province will hear from us what the deal
is; the people of the Province will be able to speak back to us and tell us what
they think of it in many and varied ways.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to my questions, the
minister said: Inco wants to bring conclusions to their discussions with the
Aboriginal people, the discussions in Ottawa and discussions with us - meaning
the government - to clean up the two or three big issues that are left.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is: Is it two or three big issues
left, and what are they?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: I would ask the hon. member now to lay aside one of his
hands and start counting on his fingers because one hand will do it for him, and
let him decide whether it is two or three, once I describe to him what it is
that is outstanding in terms of the negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, we have said that we need to conclude on whether or not we are
prepared to allow any concentrate to move out of the Province for a period of
time. Contingent upon that decision, there are two other issues that will be
subsumed in that decision. It will be the issue of: If we allow a period of
concentrate export, how much volume does that represent, and if we allow it,
what is the form, the type, the nature, the language, the certainty of the
guarantee that we will accept to ensure that it does come back over that period
of time? These are the issues that are left to be resolved.
I have also said publicly, and I say it again in the House, we have to ensure
around that issue of concentrate period of export that may be a possibility in a
final deal, that if we allow that to happen, the development timelines for the
project - that is the execution of the project, from the day the announcement is
made until the day the new commercial processing refinery in Argentia is fired
up to be a process that produces finished nickel - we need to be sure that from
the date of the announcement to the date that the plant goes into operation,
that the timelines are right so there is no undue delay in the completion of the
project.
The project has two main component parts: the development of a mine, mill and
a smelter in Labrador; and the development of a demonstration testing plant for
hydromet in Argentia together with a processing facility that will be built if
we get the deal done. That you can be assured of. There will be, one way or the
other, processing to a finished nickel product in this Province at the
conclusion of any negotiations that we successfully come to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is to the Minister of Education.
Allocation of teachers in this Province is based primarily on the number of
students, when primary focus should be on a provision of programs.
I would like to ask the minister: Why do rural schools, like Baltimore School
in Ferryland, not get the same access to programs as high schools in urban
areas, such as St. John's?
AN HON. MEMBER: Student-teacher ratio.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, there is no discrimination against students in
rural Newfoundland. In fact, if you look at the formula that is being designed
under the William-Sparkes report, they have given additional units to rural
schools to ensure they are able to have courses offered that would be required
in terms of our core curriculum, Mr. Speaker. So clearly, there is no
discrimination against rural schools in Newfoundland, therefore against students
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador because again, that was taken into account
when the formula was devised by these two credible gentlemen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This current year, PWC offers ninety-four programs in high schools; Mount
Pearl, 103 programs; Booth Memorial, eighty-four; Holy Heart of Mary, 118
programs; and Baltimore School in Ferryland, the high school offers only
fifty-four programs. They were told when they combined four schools into one it
would save programs.
I have a copy of a letter here outlining numerous cuts, Minister, that are
going to occur next year. One of these involves eliminating physics, for the
first time in almost fifty years, from the curriculum in schools in the area -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: - and the position has been declared redundant.
I want to ask the minister why students in rural Newfoundland and Labrador
are being subjected to a different standard of education opportunity than
students in urban parts of our Province? I want to ask the minister, does she
believe that rural students should expect less than students in urban areas of
our Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. he Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Let me say again that the formula
we have out there takes into account rural Newfoundland. With respect to the
course that the member has asked about -
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
MS FOOTE: If he wants the answer I will give it to him, if he could stop
talking long enough. I know that is hard for him, Mr. Speaker.
Having said that, Physics 2204 - the decision has not been made to cut
Physics 2204. In fact, the principal has not made a decision yet. To date, only
six students have registered to take the course. (Inaudible) the principal is
still trying to decide how to accommodate those six students.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rose in this House last week and raised this issue in Budget. The minister
went out and phoned the school board. I spoke with the principal. I have a
letter from the Chair of the student council. I talked with the school board
member. I have dealt with this issue, Minister.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: Minister, will you stand and tell me here now that programs
in this Province are based - allocations are based on programs and not based on
the number of students? Is that what you are saying here today, because that is
not correct?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, commonsense will tell you that if you have a
larger student population in a school, you are going to be able to offer more
programs. But, Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to offer a core curriculum
in our educational system in this Province and we are doing just that. We ensure
that our students have all the courses that are required to graduate, Mr.
Speaker.
As for calling the school board, I will call them everyday if I think
students are being negatively impacted. That is my job and I will do it again
and again -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: - to make sure that students get the courses that they need and
deserve. It is not fair for you to suggest that that physics course has been
cut. It has not been cut and the principal is considering how to accommodate the
students.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
I would like to ask the minister this: What does a person do who qualifies
for home care but who is unable to access it for a period of six to eight
months? I will be specific. There is an eighty-six year old woman who lives
alone, has a bad heart, is unable to cook for herself and she has other medical
problems. Her son and his wife normally take care of his mother but he has to
leave the Province to get work for a period of six months. She needs help, while
he is gone, for a couple of days a week. I would like to ask the minister what
suggestions he has for this woman in the interim?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I regret the fact that the hon. member chooses repeatedly in the House to
rise and raise individual cases. In any given day my office, and I am sure the
offices of most hon. members in this House, deal with specific cases and
concerns that people are bringing forward, certainly in terms of the
circumstances as the hon. relays them, Mr. Speaker. It is not a situation that
any of us find particularly appealing. I certainly have great sympathy for the
family involved, and I would suggest to her that it might be more productive in
terms - and I cannot even say. What we have to recognize, in terms of the
demands that are made on the health care system and, certainly, in terms of home
support, is that it is an area that is growing significantly. We recognize there
are increasing demands there that we are going to be challenged as a Province to
meet, next week and looking further out. For example, as the hon. member would
probably be aware, in the presentation that I, as minister, made to the Romanow
Commission - I suggested in that presentation, quite frankly, that this is an
area that the federal government needs to make a decision on; to look, in a very
serious fashion, with us because this is an area that they need to come onboard
and start providing some funding.
In the interim, we are trying to deal with the situations as they are arise.
In individual cases, where they exist, as the hon. member has described here
today, certainly, if she were to call me at any time I would certainly try to
ensure that the situation is being dealt with as effectively as possible.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. SMITH: But I cannot guarantee, without knowing the particulars or
further what the hon. member is referencing, whether, in fact, there is anything
that we could do there.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: I will say this to the minister: a couple of weeks ago I
raised an issue in the House and you said you don't micro-manage. I asked
another issue, you said, outside in the scrum, for people to call you. What is
it minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to her question.
MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to ask the minister this: In light of what we
know to be true, that living at home is far better for the patient's
well-being and certainly more economically sound, wouldn't it be better to
give this person a couple of hours of home care now rather than leave her at the
risk of something happening to her that would cause her to be institutionalized?
For the minister's information, this person has gotten in touch with
officials in your department and has been told that the wait is six to eight
months.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I find it very, very difficult to rise in this
House and respond to specifics of cases as they apply to certain individuals. I
really would question the hon. member as to this line of questioning. I would
suggest to her that perhaps she would serve her constituents and the broader
constituency of the Province much better to stand and rise and speak to the
principles in terms of what we are trying to do in the delivery of programs of
that nature. To ask this minister to respond to the specifics of a case as they
apply to a certain individual, I think, first of all, it is inappropriate to be
doing it in this type of forum; but I say to her that I am certainly open to sit
down with her, to discuss with her at any time particulars of a case that she
has before her, to see if, in fact, there is anything that we can do to assist.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
The FPI Act committee, the all-party committee, made a report at the end of
February; one of the recommendations of which had to do with the processing and
the handling of quotas that FPI had both being harvested by Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians and processed in the Province. We agreed, Mr. Speaker, with the
suggestion of FPI that enforceable agreement was better than legislation.
I want to ask the minister whether or not he is in a position today to table
the agreement negotiated at the suggestion of FPI, to have a binding agreement
to ensure that FPI would not process its quotas outside the Province or harvest
them with people from outside of Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Leader of the NDP Party for his question. I would also like to
thank him for the honourable way in which he conducted himself during the whole
FPI hearings. With regard to the question, he is right. We were considering
putting a clause in the legislation that would say that all quotas of fish that
were traditionally harvested and processed here in the Province would continue
to do so, and continue to be processed here in the Province, but during our
debates around the Province we had a letter from the Board of Directors of FPI
saying that it was not necessary to put it in the legislation and that they
would give us an enforceable contract, and, as such, not make it necessary to
put it in the legislation.
We did have some correspondence from FPI shortly after that time and it was
unacceptable to us at the time. We have gone back and talked to them again, but
I think in recent days or weeks that FPI, along with the FFAW, have been
involved in contract talks, so we do not have that agreement today but I am
hoping that we will have it. If it is not forthcoming, we can still come back to
the Legislature and introduce another amendment to the act, to include the
processing of all quotas by FPI in the Province for the benefit of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The actual recommendation of the committee was to allow what we call a
reasonable period of time. Now, it has been two-and-a-half months, Mr. Speaker.
I do not think the complexities of the suggestion were that grave.
I wonder, is the minister prepared to tell us today what his deadline is for
this reasonable period of time? Will we have legislation before the end of this
session, if we do not have an agreement from FPI? Is the minister planning to
inform FPI when he expects to have this agreement in place, or will we have to
see legislation - or is the minister prepared to commit to legislation - before
the end of this session of the House of Assembly?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we would prefer if FPI came forward
with the enforceable contract. As for the time frame, you say it has been
two-and-a-half months. I think the legislation pertaining to the FPI Act was
brought into the House some five weeks ago, if I am not mistaken. As for a time
frame, I would be glad to sit down with the members of the committee and discuss
what would be a reasonable time frame, because it was an all-party committee
that went around the Province. We made the recommendation, so I would not want
to act unilaterally and do that. I would rather speak to the other members of
the committee, and I am willing to do that any time they wish.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on page 719 in the House of Commons
Procedure and Practice , Edition 2000, by Marleau, it states the following,
and I quote, "In 1986, provision was made for the Leader of the Opposition
to extend the committee consideration of the Main Estimates of one department or
agency beyond the..." normal reporting deadline "...for a period not
exceeding 10 further sitting days."
Again, on page 737 it further states the following, and I quote, "The
rules provide for one exception to the May 31 reporting deadline for Main
Estimates. The Leader of the Opposition may give, not later than the third
sitting day prior to..." the deadline "...notice of a motion to extend
the committee consideration of the Main Estimates of a named department or
agency. The motion is deemed adopted when called under "Motions"
during Routine Proceedings...".
Mr. Speaker, according to our Standing Orders, the deadline for committee
consideration of the main Estimates is Monday, May 13, 2002. In view of the fact
that our Standing Orders are silent on this matter, then I move that in
accordance with Standing Orders 81(4)(
a) of the House of Commons that
consideration of the Department of Mines and Energy votes 1.1.01. through to
3.1.05. of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, by the
Standing Committee on Resources be extended beyond May 13, 2002.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege, the hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Estimates Committees in this House are a way in which
members of both sides of the Legislature have an opportunity to debate the
Estimates of each and every department. According to the definition of what the
Estimates Committee is: It is a Standing Committee of this Legislature, number
one. The scope of its enquiry is not limited to only the Estimates or the
subheads in the Estimates as presented and put forward under motion by the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. In fact, Estimates,
according to Marleau, in the description of what Estimates Committees are, Beauchesne
and Maingot , the authorities that we govern ourselves by in this House,
talk about Estimates Committees: have the absolute right and privilege to
investigate policy matters of the government, administrative matters dealing
with the government, and, in fact, can question the government, particular
ministers or departments, on what future spending priorities may be.
Mr. Speaker, today in Question Period - and it is worth nothing in the point
that I make in terms of privilege - the Minister of Mines and Energy stood and
said that after six hours and twenty minutes of deliberation, that he had never
seen so much deliberation on one department in his life in this Legislature,
that the Committee was called, the vote was called and moved on because an
appropriate amount of time had expired. Let me remind all members of this House
that it is not a particular member or minister who defines what is an
appropriate amount of time - or Estimates.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: This is a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I ask to be
heard on a personal point of privilege.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his point of privilege.
MR. E. BYRNE: I will, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to make the case and I
will get to it as quickly as I can, under your direction.
Mr. Speaker, for the minister's information, in 1993, when he himself was a
member of the Department of Government Services and Estimates Committee, the
committee process in 1993, the Department of Mines and Energy went beyond six
hours and twenty minutes - I apologize, in 1994 - in debating another
significant public policy issue, namely, the privatization of Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this: The definition of privilege can be best defined
by a couple of references to Maingot . In establishing a prima facie case
before you, any member - me in this case - has to do the following: A prima
facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on
its face, as outlined by a member, is sufficiently strong for the House to be
asked to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of the
House have been breached or a contempt has occurred, and report back to the
House.
It goes on to say -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like to hear it?
It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that furthermore members have a tendency -
sorry - because of a more relaxed practice in the House of Commons, it is
accustomed to entertaining many allegations of privilege. Nevertheless, Speakers
continue to urge members to restrict a privilege procedure to rare occasions
where a case can be made.
That is what I am about to do.
On page 12, Mr. Speaker, of the same general definition, it says:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House
collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament and by
members of each House individually, without which they could
not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other
bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to
entertain the extent and exemption from ordinary law.
Mr. Speaker, what happened this morning is that at 12:00, in the Estimates
Committee procedure, members of the committee were still questioning the
Department of Mines and Energy on the Estimates. They were at
section subhead
2.1.03. when a motion was put forward that effectively stopped and shut down
debate on this particular department.
It is unprecedented, Mr. Speaker, that this would happen. A motion was put
forward, while members of the committee still had questions of the minister and
his officials, to automatically vote on every subhead and stop members from
pursuing their parliamentary duties.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the member's privilege -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I just want to advise members of the House that committees, as we all know,
are masters of their own affairs and matters. Issues that occur in the committee
ought to be dealt with in the committee. The House and the Chair - the Chair
will only receive a report from the committee or deal with matters from the
committee when the committee itself reports. I deem it inappropriate for the
Chair to be hearing a point of order or a point of privilege on something that
occurred in committee, but I will take it under advisement as to whether or not
it is appropriate for the Chair to be dealing with that matter.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
My understanding from the member is that he is dealing with a point of
privilege on a matter or an issue that occurred in committee. I will hear the
hon. member's point of privilege but I must advise him that it is
inappropriate for the Chair to be dealing with a matter that occurred in
committee, and that has been ruled on a number of occasions.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, when I conclude, which I will in a second,
maybe you can advise me on: Should I bring it back to committee, which
ultimately has to come back to the House?
The fact of the matter is, this morning, that in order for the privileges and
rights and duties of members in this House.... One is the freedom of speech,
which was denied this morning. Secondly, and in order for a prima facie case of
privilege to be established, we must establish that the members, the
parliamentary work of that member, was interfered with; and it was this morning.
Members were not allowed to question further subheads of the committee.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I say to you, all members understand that there is a
time limit on Estimates Committee meetings. Whether the deliberations are
concluded next Monday on the thirteenth, or not, they are deemed to be done. I
have never seen, in my days in this Legislature, a committee take such
unnecessary and restrictive action. Therefore, I submit to you that members of
the committee's privileges were breached today because: one, the decision
taken by the government members on the committee interfered with their
parliamentary work, duties and responsibilities; and, two, that it secondly
denied their freedom of speech in the pursuance of such work, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, based on your intervention, I will not belabour
this point very long, other than to say that committees are masters of their
House. They are an extension of this House and they should look after their own
affairs, Mr. Speaker. That is about all I want to say, and I leave it in the
capable hands of Your Honour.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not going to speak. I rise on a point of personal privilege.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We are dealing with a point of privilege raised by the hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
The Chair has indicated that points of order and privilege, the committees
are masters of their own affairs, and there is where they should be resolved. I
will certainly take it under advisement to see if it is appropriate, what
process happens in other jurisdictions to hear a point of privilege that is
raised by a member of the committee. In the past, the practice has been that we
will deal with matters when they are reported by the committee.
MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, on a point of
privilege.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I won't deal with the motion that has been put by the hon. the Leader of
the Opposition, or deal with the comments that were made directly by the
Opposition House Leader, but I think it is important, I think I have a
responsibility to, for the record, indicate to the House that, in terms of the
committee's examination of the Estimates of the Department of Mines and
Energy, there was, in fact, Mr. Speaker, no hesitation or no reluctance on the
part of the minister or his officials to -
AN HON. MEMBER: You never said that.
MR. MATTHEWS: I want to be on the record as having it clear, that there
was no reluctance on behalf of the minister or the department officials to
answer questions.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is also fair for me to put this on the record, so
that people will understand what is, in fact, going on here - while I
acknowledge that most of the questions that were asked today had to do with line
items in the Budget, the fact of the matter is that the intent of the hon.
members who sit on the opposite side of the House was not to debate the
Estimates of my department but rather, Mr. Speaker, to debate and to ask
questions and to seek information about a negotiation that is ongoing on a very
sensitive and a very particular file in the interests of the Province. I would
submit, Mr. Speaker, that to insinuate that government, as represented by this
minister, was unprepared to answer questions in Estimates is not factual.
Mr. Speaker, the issue that I raise is this, that the intent -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to get to his point quickly.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The intent of what this is all about is to ask questions with respect to a
negotiation that cannot be discussed in private -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has listened to what the hon. member has said, and again it is
certainly no point of privilege, and really not a point of order either, because
the hon. member -
MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member wanted to clarify a point that was raised earlier, and
probably that is what he was doing, clarifying his position or his point on a
certain matter. It is certainly not a point of order or a point of privilege.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Before we heard the point of privilege raised by the hon. Opposition House
Leader, I believe we were on Notices of Motion under Routine Proceedings.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could revert to Presenting Reports
for a moment, please?
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that we revert to Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees?
AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.
MR. SPEAKER: We have agreement.
MR. NOEL: I table the annual report of the operation of the Board of
Commissioners of Public Utilities, Mr. Speaker.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of Labrador West.
The petition, Mr. Speaker, is:
To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
in parliament assembled;
WHEREAS the Province provided funding for four new multiple sclerosis drug
therapies; and
WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Drug Prescription plan only provide for
medication coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizen's Drug Subsidy
Program and people on income support; and
WHEREAS these drugs can cost between $1,800 to $3,600 a month; and
WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with
these high cost drugs, using co-payment or sliding scale programs, not limited
to social assistance income levels; and
WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve life for people with MS.
We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government
to implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for Betaseron, Avonex,
Copaxone and Rebif so that people who do not qualify for assistance under the
existing programs can get financial assistance with these high cost drugs, as is
the case in every other Canadian province.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday as I presented this same petition -
because I think it is important and people of the Province deserve some type of
coverage. The only people who are not covered under these drug programs that the
Province offers are people who are out there working for a living, trying to
provide for their families and are affected by MS. That is very unfortunate,
very unfair, to many hard-working people in this Province who have to reduce
themselves to poverty level before this government will step in and offer any
assistance.
As I repeated before in my questions in this House - and this is what baffles
people the most - it is not that this government cannot afford or will not pay
for these drugs for people to use, it is a matter of what government are forcing
people to do to themselves and their families before they will.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people in my district who are suffering
from MS, who could use these drugs. I am sure that there are people in all other
member's districts in this House who also are affected by MS. I would
encourage people in other areas to approach their member in this House of
Assembly and do what they can to pressure this government, on behalf of the
people who need these drugs, to bring government to a point where they will
introduce a policy similar to that of P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and
every other province in this country where people can receive assistance when
they are suffering and need these high costing drugs.
Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, to conclude?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I say, this petition is part of an ongoing campaign by people in my
district with MS that, I am sure, will move to other districts in the Province.
I will conclude because, where it is ongoing, I will have the opportunity to
speak on many other occasions on this topic.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to raise a petition as well. The petition reads:
To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the
petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;
WHEREAS the roads in the areas of Jamestown and Winter Brook are in very poor
condition and are in desperate need of paving;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to pave approximately one kilometre of road in Jamestown and approximately six
kilometres of road leading to and including part of the community of Winter
Brook, as in duly bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is another petition that is being presented here in this
House to put in a plea to the minister to look at paving the main road leading
to and through the community of Winter Brook and the community of Jamestown. It
was only four or five years ago that the community of Winter Brook celebrated
their 100 th anniversary as a community; 100 years. In fact, there is
a senior lady living in Jamestown now - which is in part of this area that I am
putting in the plea to have the road paved - who is in excess of 100 years old.
This lady has never seen and never enjoyed pavement going through her community.
This particular community is a thriving community. In fact, there are new
houses being built there on an annual basis. Up until now, they have had to
drive over a gravel road. They seen their road upgraded back in 1995; it was
made ready for paving at that time. They were promised that the road was going
to be paved the next construction season. That was in 1995, and here we are
seven years later and the road still has not been pavement. The road is still a
dirt road, the only road leading to their community.
On that particular road, as I said here before - and I will continue to say
until we get that road paved - is a major employer; one of the biggest sawmills
in Newfoundland and Labrador, Jamestown Lumber Company, employing in excess of
eighty people. The only piece of dirt road that that lumber is transported over
from the time it leaves the mill in Jamestown until it goes to the market south
of the border in the United States is the piece of roadway leading past that
sawmill, leading into Winter Brook.
Mr. Speaker, I have chatted with the owner of that particular sawmill. He has
been very conscious of the situation. It caused him all kinds of problems with
keeping his saws and knives sharpened in the sawmill there, that he has had to
go out and pave his parking lot himself. In fact, he has made a plea to me that
the road gets so bad there at certain times of the year, that he has even came
forward with a suggestion that he would help pay to put stone on the road there
in order to keep the dust down. This is a plea from a business-owner saying that
in order for me to maintain a viable operation here, in order for me to employ
those eighty people, then I need something done with this problem of dust
created on the main road leading past this particular sawmill.
I have had the minister down to my district, down to Winter Brook. He met
with people there last year where the plea was made to him, where the people in
the community came out and met on the side of the road one Saturday morning, put
in a plea to the minister to ask if this particular roadway could finally be
included in last year's Capital Works budget. To the minister's credit,
there were two kilometres done through part of the community last year. There
are still six kilometres remaining to be done on this particular roadway. It is
the main road through the community. The people in Winter Brook and Jamestown
are not asking to have sidewalks put in; they are not asking for water and
sewer; they are not asking for streetlights. What they are asking for is to have
the main road through their community paved. They are not even asking to have it
upgraded because it has already been upgraded. They are asking that it be paved.
The people living in the community are saying that it would be nice to be able
to hang clothes out on a Monday morning without having to take it in and wash it
again. The people in the community are saying what a privilege it would be to
open up your windows in the summertime to allow some fresh air to blow through
the house -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - rather than dust coming in every time there is a window
open.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask the minister to include this particular
section of roadway in this year's Capital Works budget so the people in
Jamestown and Winter Brook might realize a decent road to drive over.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of twenty-one
residents of the communities of Corner Brook, Deer Lake, Steady Brook, and
Pasadena.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
parliament assembled;
WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation has anticipated the demand for a
long-term care facility in the region and has commissioned a study in the year
2000 and that this study was concluded and it has now recommended that a new
facility be constructed; and
WHEREAS the study was delivered to the Department of Health and Community
Services in August of 2001 and a follow-up presentation was made again in
October of 2001; and
WHEREAS a conceptual plan has been presented to the regional MHAs in January
of 2002 that outlined the necessary infrastructure required to address the
extended care and chronic care needs of Western Newfoundland;
THEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, residents of Western
Newfoundland served by the Western Health Care Corporation, request that the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador immediately begin implementation of the
plan to build the required facilities as identified in the study.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by twenty-one residents of
Western Newfoundland. The petition refers to a study being done by the Western
Health Care Corporation to look into the need for long-term chronic care
facilities. That study was commissioned by a group, Nycum Group, and they have
presented their report which has recommended that there be constructed in the
Corner Brook area a 268 bed facility which will meet the needs of the region to
the year 2016.
Western Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, like many parts of the Province is facing
a declining population but also it is facing an aging population. As the
population tends to age the need for long-term and chronic care facilities is
certainly on the increase.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the Corner Brook area is serviced by three
long-term chronic care facilities namely the Inter-Faith Home which was built a
number of years ago and was designed primarily to meet the needs of Level I
patients. As of today's date, Mr. Speaker, or approximately as of today's
date, of the 105 beds at the Inter-Faith Home, fifteen of them are occupied by
Level II; eighty-seven by Level III, and one by Level IV. Individuals who need
special care; care which this facility was not designed to provide. In addition,
Mr. Speaker, the O' Connell centre, which has approximately seventy-six beds
there right now today, approximately fifty-eight of the residents are at Level
III, one is at Level IV, and seven are at Level II.
Mr. Speaker, both these facilities, the Inter-Faith Home and the O'Connell
Centre, have many shortcomings. For argument sake, in the O'Connell Centre
there is, on the fourth floor, a single washroom to meet the needs of all of the
residents. The rooms presently have no closets in which to hang up clothing.
There is no ventilation or air conditioning.
Mr. Speaker, these are not the sort of places that we -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MERCER: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MERCER: These are the types of facilities that exist in Corner Brook,
and the petitioners are asking government to consider in its long-term plans,
and its long-term plans being the immediate near future, that we do proceed with
the construction of a 268-bed facility to meet the needs of Western Newfoundland
through to the year 2016.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. Member for Placentia & St.
Mary's, I would like to welcome to the gallery today a former Member of the
House of Assembly, Mr. Sam Winsor for the District of Fogo, who is now sitting
in the gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following
prayer:
We the undersigned citizens of the Cape Shore area hereby draw your attention
to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route 100, Cape
Shore; and
WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of
the Highways Safety Act to protect its citizens not only from commuters but also
from unsafe highways; and
WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority
of any government;
THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding
to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 100, as in duty bound your
petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, once again, to stand and present this petition
which the people of the area have sent in to me and asked me to present here in
the House. This is one of many petitions that they been presented here on behalf
of the people of the Cape Shore area; people of Branch, Point Lance, St. Bride's,
Cuslett, Angels Cove, and Patrick's Cove who travel over Route 100. An
extension to that is Route 100-16, which is commonly referred to as the Point
Lance Road.
Mr. Speaker, I drive over this road on a regular basis myself. It is in a
deplorable condition. I get calls from people, letters from people on a numerous
basis who are having some major, major difficulty with cars and trucks. I heard
a lady on the Open Line show last night, as a matter of fact, telling of a story
where she had busted up a couple of tires on the road yesterday and she uses the
road on a daily basis to go back and forth to work.
It is not the only place in my district that needs roadwork, Mr. Speaker. I
could stand here and list off the community of Ship Harbour in Placentia Bay,
Fox Harbour Access Road. The Town of Placentia have a great many roads in their
town that need repairs. Throughout the Cape Shore area, which this petition has
come forward from, down through St. Mary's Bay North, about a kilometre or two
just outside the community of North Harbour, that needs major repair; down
through the community of Mount Carmel; down through the access road to Admiral's
Beach, O'Donnells and St. Joseph's. St. Mary's Bay, right from St.
Catherine's down to Peter's River needs work. There is a whole area - my
whole district needs work, Mr. Speaker.
I realize the confines of the Department of Works, Services and
Transportation and the money that the minister has at his disposal. My
understanding is around $24 million or $25 million for the provincial roads
program this year. I would estimate that my own district would need $20 million
itself just to make the repairs that are needed to the roads in my district. I
am not naive to think that the District of Placentia & St. Mary's is going
to get the total budget for this year's provincial roads program, but I
certainly hope that the minister will see, in his wisdom, to ensure that we get
a fair chunk of that for the needs that are there.
I would like to take the opportunity to say to the minister - I am sure he
has already received several letters that have been brought forward by people in
my district in relation to the road work that is needed out there. I invite the
minister today - I send a personal invitation to the minister today to drive out
through the district. It is not that far from St. John's, an hour-and-a-half
to two hours - to drive out over the roads in my district to have a look. My
understanding is that the minister was out in my area on Saturday evening, and I
heard some rumours that there could be some money allotted for the community of
Ship Harbour, for example. I was delighted to hear that. These people have been
trying to get dollars for the road for several years now. I have raised the
issue here in the House of Assembly on a couple of occasions myself, and I
intend to do so to ensure that the minister lives up to his word on any
commitments that he has made, not only to the people of Ship Harbour, but the
needs of the people of Placentia & St. Mary's.
The roads pose a major problem for emergency vehicles, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: Just a moment to finish up, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I have talked to several operators of emergency
vehicles, especially the ambulances that transport sick people back and forth to
Placentia hospital or to the hospitals here in St. John's, and the road
condition certainly make it uncomfortable and unsafe in a lot conditions with
the situation of the road.
I bring this petition forward today and ask that the minister, over the next
few days as he prepares his budget for road work in the Province, take into
consideration the concerns of the people of the Cape Shore in this petition, but
indeed, the people of the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. I am pleased
to present this petition on behalf of the people of the district today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 5, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to move
first reading of Bill 20.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce a
bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2," carried. (Bill
20)
On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 6, and maybe other bills.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!
The resolution is to be submitted to a Committee of the Whole House in
relation to a measure respecting the imposition of tax on income. (Bill 6)
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased today to introduce a technical amendment to the
Income Tax Act, 2000, which will result in greater fairness in the tax system.
This amendment really was something that was thought to have been necessary to
put in place when government moved to a tax on income and moved away from the
old system with the federal government. It is designed to achieve integration of
the personal and corporate income system with respect to the income of small
Canadian controlled private corporations. It will result in a decrease in the
dividend tax credit rate from 9 per cent, which it was previously, to now 5 per
cent. This new dividend tax credit rate applies to all dividends declared and
paid on or after March 21, 2002. Dividends declared and paid prior to March 21,
will be eligible for the 9 per cent dividend tax credit.
Currently, our provincial income tax system provides more favourable tax
treatment to dividend income compared to salaries, and it was never meant to do
this, Mr. Chair. This means that a small business owner/manager can arrange his
or her own affairs to pay less tax than an employed person - like the rest of us
- who earns the same income.
The new dividend tax credit will remove this tax preference, resulting in the
integration of the provincial personal income tax system and the corporate
income tax system. I would say, Mr. Chair, that I am sure for some people,
particularly in the higher income brackets, this is not necessarily a welcome
tax amendment. But, when we are looking to try to find ways to achieve the best
method of reducing our deficit and attracting more tax dollars, we try to do it
in a way that would affect lower income earners the least. It would minimize the
impact for those people but it would affect those in a higher income category,
those who are better able to pay the tax.
Since the dividend tax credit applies to all dividends from taxable Canadian
corporations, not just small businesses, other taxpayers who receive dividend
income may be impacted as well by this measure. Despite the narrow intended
scope of the dividend tax credit, retail investors who receive dividends also
have benefitted from the credit for many years, really. Even with this reduced
credit, from 9 per cent to 5 per cent, they will still continue to pay a lower
tax rate on dividends than on similar investments that earned interest income.
So, that is an important point, Mr. Chair, that even with this reduced rate,
from 9 per cent to 5 per cent, they will still continue to pay a lower tax on
dividends than on similar investments that earned interest income.
While income tax integration will result in increased revenues for the
Province of approximately $3 million annually, the impact on the majority of
affected taxpayers will be small. Again, I would say it is important that this
type of measure was really designed to impact minimally on lower wage earners. I
think that is clearly the direction of this government. Taxpayers' income in
excess of $50,000 accounts for more than three-quarters, for 76 per cent, of all
the dividend income in the Province. This is important. So, those who are in the
higher income earning categories, of over $50,000, will actually account for
more than 76 per cent of all the dividend income in the Province. Just 10 per
cent will be earned by the 74.9 per cent of tax filers with incomes under
$30,000. Many of these will be unaffected since they are not in a taxable
position. For those who will be affected, the tax increase will be approximately
$4.38 on each $100 of dividends received. This increased to $4.77 for higher
income individuals who will pay the high income tax surtax.
Mr. Chair, as I have indicated, this tax is a technical amendment. It does
bring greater fairness to the people of the Province, inasmuch as it is designed
to affect the higher income earners more, as it should, than the lower income
earners. We believe that achieving the $3 million in this way is a very
important way to look at addressing our shortfall in the Budget, and to assist
this government to impose a tax which we believe is not a tax affecting the
majority of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Those, clearly, who are making in excess of $50,000 a year account for over
three-quarters of all of the people who are receiving dividend incomes in the
Province. In fact, those people who have an income of from $10,000 to $20,000
will not be impacted at all, I say to the Member for Ferryland. I am sure he
will be on his feet shortly and will have a chance to speak or ask questions. I
am just about to clue up. So, if you would afford me the opportunity I will be
listening attentively. Again, in terms of those that are affected most, it seems
that those who are in the income category of $70,000 to $100,000, as it relates
to dividend income, will pay the highest amount of money.
It was a clear decision, I would say, Mr. Chair, that when we make decisions
like we did about taxation increase - we debated yesterday in this House about
increasing taxes on cigarettes. We believe this was for two reasons. One, it
will serve as a deterrent for young people who are considering smoking and,
also, it is something that is seen as a pleasure tax. Already we have seen in
this Province a decline in the number of smokers and we are still quite
confident that we will achieve the revenue that we have identified.
Also, I will say, as another tax, the dividend tax credit, this was very
specifically chosen because it will impact mostly higher wage earners in this
Province. It is certainly the mandate of this government to try to minimize any
sort of tax increase, to try to find and strike the right balance.
Again, it would perhaps, as the member opposite would say, calling it some
form of a tax grab, but I would say, and I think it is important to say, that
you can do a lot of things if you have a lot of money; but if you do not have
the money and you need to maintain your priority of health care and education,
it is very important to choose ways that will impact minimally on the majority
of people in our Province. That was one of the reasons why we went with this
dividend tax credit, because, of course, it was something that was supposed to
have been done when we moved towards the integration. We are very pleased again
today to say that, from this tax credit change from 9 per cent to 5 per cent,
the decrease, it will allow this government to achieve an extra $3 million of
revenue so that we can put it towards programs like health, like education, and
like our social services.
Again, Mr. Chair, I thank you for the opportunity for introducing this
amendment to our Income Tax concerning the dividend tax credit and look forward
to it passing.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman
I didn't hear the minister say how big the tax grab was, what the total
value was, but it is interesting the twist she puts on it. She said the purpose
of this bill is to sort of equalize, to put equity into the system, equity by
bringing people at a lower level up to a higher level. Wouldn't it be just as
equitable if you brought people at a higher level down to a lower level? That
would be equity. Actually, this is more money. This is more money in taxes.
Here is why I think it will have some adverse effects on small
Canadian-controlled corporations. For example, if you own your own business, it
is a small business, you want to work at that business and work real hard seven
days a week, put a lot of time and effort in there to the business because you
have - and you make a fair amount of money in a particular year - the option
then to take dividends. If you are an owner of that company you have an option
to take dividends out.
If you are going to have tax at the level where you work hard to get higher
income and you are going to pay the same as you would on income, what is the
incentive, then, to build up income in your business, build up equity,
basically, or get a higher income? The incentive is not there. When you get to a
certain level, you will say: Why work all that much harder? Because I am going
into a higher tax bracket and I am going to pay more.
You had a credit of 9 per cent before, now it is going to be 5 per cent, so
it is almost double now and the incentive is not there in small, private,
Canadian-controlled corporations to give you that little impetus to put a few
extra dollars in your pocket because you worked Saturdays and Sundays and put in
some extra time.
If you had a bad year, you would not take it. If you had a good year, you
might want to take a higher amount of dividends and buy something you would not
normally buy. A luxury item that would be high taxes would probably keep
somebody working at a car dealership, a furniture store, or some other area.
That would go back into the economy again. This is not going to be here now. We
are going to see a difference here.
The minister tries to paint it as saying we are putting equity in there now.
We are going to make it fair for everybody, basically. It has nothing to do with
separating the federal/provincial tax. What it has is telling you, if you take
income out of a corporation in a dividend, and you take it out in a salary, it
is going to be the same. If you are working for your own company, and you did
not take any salary and you took all dividends, Revenue Canada would be a little
suspicious of that - Canada Customs and Revenue Agency - because you are getting
a reduced rate.
Normally, if you are working for your own company, you are probably taking a
salary anyway and this dividend is a little extra money on top when you have
worked hard and had a reasonably good year and put a lot of time in. Anybody
starting a small business would know, when you are working in small business,
you put in an endless number of hours. You work days, you work nights, you work
Saturdays and Sundays. It is a seven-day-a-week job, almost twenty-four hours a
day of worry and constant work, especially if you have a few employees out
there, and it is a little reward. It is a little reward for that extra
incentive. That has now been removed. The minister is telling us we are going to
remove that now to create equity in the system.
Look, if there is a certain standard of service being provided in one area,
and I will use the example, urban areas have a higher standard and higher access
to education programs than in rural areas. I raised that this morning. The
school in my district has fifty-four programs this current year - 118 at Holy
Heart - more than double the programs in high school. So we have a different
level. So we are going to make it equity now. We are going to bring everybody
down to fifty-four programs. That is equity, I suppose. Everybody gets the same.
But is that the way to solve it? No, you are trying to bring everybody up to a
higher standard. So what they have done here is, they have added extra tax. That
is what they have done. They have added an extra tax.
If you use the same reasoning, when she talked about smoking and the effect
on kids.... The Government House Leader - we made reference yesterday when he
said in 1985, extra taxes makes more children go hungry. Extra tobacco tax makes
more children go hungry. The minister said today, on extra taxes - if that is
going to make more children go hungry, by adding extra tax. If that is the
rationale, it is going to affect people. If the same thing that stood for this
government when they were in opposition, the same philosophy, the same belief
and the same statements they made, if they are the same today, that is what it
will do, if we believe the Government House Leader.
Regardless of what way you look at it, it is a reduction in an incentive for
somebody to work and build up a fair amount of money in their business where
they can take it on a particular year. You make have an extraordinary
expenditure - personally, you may want in a particular year - it could be
medical bills, who knows, in a particular year. It gives you the latitude to
take some extra money. We are getting a credit of 9 per cent instead of 5 per
cent. That would be the particular dividend tax credit that you would get on
that. So, that is basically what they are doing here. You can cut it how you
like, you can say it whatever you like, it is an extra tax. It is more taxes. It
is getting equity by bringing people up to a higher tax level than bringing
others down to a lower tax level. That is what it is doing, basically. It is
exactly what it is doing there.
The minister tried to paint it as telling you that we are going to put a bit
of fairness into our tax system. If giving everybody a higher taxes is fairness,
she accomplished her objective by putting fairness in the system by increasing
the tax for everybody. That, to me - fairness in not always best. Fairness is
not always best, if everybody is paying a higher tax than they should. If
everybody paid a lower tax, that would be fairness and that would be better than
everybody paying a higher tax.
While we are on the tax system here, I have raised this issue before in
Question Period. I have raised it in the Budget debate. I have said many times
before, that this government has given us a reduction in taxes perceived, that
never delivered. In fact, almost weekly, if not daily, I am getting calls from
people, e-mails and letters. One individual today said: We were paying 62 per
cent of federal tax before this increase, and we are told by this minister and
this government we were paying 69 per cent of federal tax. When they separated
the taxes, it was going to be 62 per cent, 55 per cent, and 49 per cent. We are
still at the 62 per cent level before the change. We never went down. In fact,
this individual is saying, if your income is below $29,590 - that is the lowest
tax bracket provincially. This person said, on income they have looked at, it
was 66.1 per cent. If you are $29,500 to $59,160, in that range, there is 73.5
per cent tax.
There are very choice words used here. This particular person, a well
informed individual, I might add, has indicated the provincial government should
come clean with the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador and inform them that
they have increased provincial tax from 62 per cent of federal tax to 66.1 per
cent and even higher. In cases it is considerably higher, into the 70 per cent
taxes. The government should stop this slippery, backhanded way of implementing
tax increases on people and stop insulting the intelligence of decent, hard
working people. That is basically one individual's (inaudible), and they know.
Tax accountants know what is happening, other accountants out there know,
general accountants know, CGAs and CAs, people who are doing their income taxes.
I am looking at dozens and dozens of examples of how we are paying a higher tax,
how this government did not live up to its commitment to reduce the tax even in
the second year of that three year promise. This government has not stood up and
refuted it because they cannot. They know themselves. They are pulling money in
the back door and they are saying out front that they are giving tax breaks.
That is what is happening.
I use the example, bracket creep. By ignoring inflation provincially we now
have one of the most complicated tax forms in the country and there are a lot of
problems being encountered in processing these because the forms are so
complicated now. There are different standards, provincially and federally, on
all of these. In fact, the figure I heard last year - and the minister might be
able to give a more up-to-date figure. I have heard that bracket creep alone
would put $11 million into the coffers of our Province. It is going to be more
this year because we are not allowing for inflation. When they separated the
taxes, the lowest bracket federally and provincially was the same, $29,590. The
next bracket was double that, which would be $59,180.
What have we done now? The provincial bracket is still $29,590 and federally
it is up around $31,000. So, we have taken almost $2,000 of income at every tax
bracket and put the higher tax rate on it rather than the lower tax rate. That
is called bracket creep, not allowing for inflation, when people's purchasing
powers, their disposable income, is not increasing.
In the last several years we have seen GDP go up by 40 per cent and the
personal disposable income of people in this Province has not gone up at all.
Now, when GDP goes up we talk about how fantastic that is in our Province, but
if there is no more money going in your pocket in the last five years, your
personal disposable income has not gone up at all, it stayed the same, in the
$8.some billion range. When GDP has gone from $10 billion to $14 billion,
personal disposal income has stayed at around $8 billion. That is telling us
something. That is telling us that we are getting a growth that is hollow, we
are not getting any real growth in the economy. We are not getting the jobs, we
are not getting the income, we are not getting the taxation from new jobs into
our Province because of the increase. Most of the increase in GDP has gone into
oil products. That is why there has been an increase in GDP; because of that.
Now we have had very little increase in other areas contributing to GDP. The
biggest contributor to our Gross Domestic Product is the service industry. That
accounts for half of the whole GDP. The oil industry only accounts for less than
10 per cent, even though the rate of increase to GDP is mostly attributed to
oil. But where is that going? It is going in a tanker going to the Eastern
Seaboard creating jobs in the United States and other parts of this country. It
is not creating jobs here on the Island of Newfoundland and in Labrador. It is
not creating jobs here. That is why we are not getting that disposable income.
We are getting eaten away and we are getting taxed to death, nickeled and dimed
to death with every policy.
In this House yesterday a bill passed. Government supported another $15
million in taxes. The Minister of Finance was not here, but the Government House
Leader said, in 1985 when they increased the tobacco tax, that there were more
children going to go hungry, because we increased taxes. So are more children
going to go hungry now, I say to the minister, because we increased taxes? The
Government House Leader said in 1985 in this House, when a previous PC
government raised tobacco tax in this Province, that could mean more children in
this Province are going to go hungry, because of that increase. You, Minister of
Finance, increased it by $15 million with a bill yesterday, basically. That is
what you are saying. So, if you use that same rational you used when you were in
Opposition, that is what it would mean.
I do not buy that argument. I do not buy what you said. I am using your
reasoning. I don't buy it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: That is right.
If a parent is going to have their child go hungry because taxes went up on
tobacco, do you think you should blame the government on that? No. I did not
agree with you in the beginning, and I do not agree with you now. But you have
taken both side. When it is convenient to twist something politically, to say
something, he will use it. I do not agree with him. If a child goes hungry
because the cost of tobacco goes up and there is tax on tobacco, shame, I say.
Shame, then, on the parent who is going to have their child deprived of food
because they have to go buy tobacco and because of an increase in taxes.
AN HON. MEMBER: Flip-flop.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, just a flip-flop.
One thing I will tell you, I have been consistent in what I believe in, and I
have not flipped from one side of the coin to the other for political purposes.
The minister stands up today and is flip-flopping all over the place.
The former Minister of Finance said: We are raising this $200 million. They
are looking for $200 million to help pay down pension liability, and the
Minister of Finance makes a statement: Oh, no, we are not doing that. The $147
million is already looked after in Statement I of the Estimates. They cannot
agree. It spite of all the prompting he gives her, they still cannot agree when
they go public and stand up here. One day it is one thing and one day it is
another. It is like a flatfish you would see upon a wharf, flop-flop all over
the place. You have often seen that. When you are in processing cod and you get
a flatfish, you throw it aside and you see it flop-flopping all over the place -
AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know about that?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I do know about being on a wharf, I tell you, and
seeing flatfish on a wharf. I have seen them flop, and I see such a resemblance
here that I cannot tell, from day-to-day, whether you are flatfish or humans,
there is so much flopping, I say to the minister. That is what is happening.
MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible)
MR. SULLIVAN: If the Member for Bay of Islands has something to say
there, instead of yelling across the House -
MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible)
MR. SULLIVAN: That is erroneous, I might add. What he is saying is
completely incorrect. What he is saying is not true, what he is saying is false.
If he has the gumption to stand up here and say it in the House, I can prove it
is false; if he wants to get in his place. Number one, Mr. Chair, he is not in
his seat. He is not entitled to speak in this House when he is not in his seat.
Secondly, what he is saying is false, if he was in his seat. That is the reason
why he is not eager to go to his seat.
Whatever way you look at it, this minister is telling us today that this is
going to put equity in a tax system because we are going to bring people, who
are paying at a certain level, up and make them pay higher, pay what everyone
else is paying; and then we have equity in our tax system. Look, she should have
stood up and said: Here is what we are doing. We want to make another tax grab.
We want to take more money out of the pockets to reduce the disposable income of
the people in our Province, so we will have less money to spend. That is what
they are doing. They did it with a bill yesterday here in the House and are
doing it with a bill today. Don't be at the front door preaching, we are
giving tax cuts, and going to the back door and pulling in taxes hand over fist,
higher than they were before they gave a tax cut.
When did you ever see a tax cut that took in more revenue, basically?
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIR: Does the member have leave?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Two seconds, to clue up.
CHAIR: By leave, to clue up.
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister said two seconds to clue up? I asked for
leave, Mr. Chair, to - I know I can get back on it again. Nobody on government
side - only one yesterday, I think, or two - stood up, out of the twelve of us,
to speak on a bill, and now they are going to deny leave. We have lots of people
here who want to speak and I will get back at it again.
If there is someone on that side who wants to stand up and speak, I will sit
down and if not, I will ask for leave. Anyone wants to speak on the other side,
I would gladly sit down.
No one has taken up the challenge, so I assume, Mr. Chairman, I have leave.
CHAIR: The member is already on leave.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Nobody else on my side are in agreement to continue?
The other side has nobody to get up? If that is the case, we are not going to
call the question to vote on this, so I can continue provided no one else
desires an opportunity to speak. That is the point.
MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I have no objection to giving the member a little bit of leave to continue
for a few moments, but there are perhaps other speakers on this side. I
certainly want to speak on this matter. I did not want the debate to end,
though, with no other speakers. So if the member wants to go on for a few more
minutes, I have no objection, but I certainly would like to have an opportunity
to speak. In that case, he can speak again, I guess, after he speaks for a few
more moments.
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland, on leave.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The point I made is that if anybody else wants to get up and speak, I will
gladly sit down. I have said that. But if there is nobody waiting to get up and
speak, and the bill is going to be debated all day long -
MR. E. BYRNE: The government side.
MR. J. BYRNE: The government side.
MR. SULLIVAN: Or even on this side, I would sit down.
No one on government side wants to get up. They do not want to speak on this
bill because they do not want to stand up here and try to defend a tax increase
in a bill when they are out preaching the breaks they are giving on taxes in our
Province. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth on it. We are taking
in more revenue with this. We are taking small business in our Province,
basically, where you go out and work and at the end of the year, if you had a
good year, you look at your income and if you had an extra $30,000 you made in
the year, you might say: Well, I would like to take a dividend now. I have
worked hard, I have worked seven days a week and I did not take an vacation. I
have extra money I made in the company, I would like to take out some money in
the dividend and buy a new car or buy some furniture or whatever the case may
be. You cannot do that anymore because if you take in a salary, or take any
dividend, there will be no difference anymore now. So where is the incentive for
a small private business to go out and work seven days a week? I know what it is
like, I worked seven days a week in a small business; not anymore. I am out of
it ten years now, but I know what it is like; and that opportunity arose in the
past. I know what it is to work seven days a week, twelve months a year and at
the end, if you had a good year and you decided: Well, shouldn't I get some
reward? Where is the incentive going to be anymore now? It is not going to be
there. She is justified in doing that but the point I am making here is that,
don't get up and tell us it is done for the purpose of putting equity in the
system, when that is not the reason, because equity, by bringing people up to a
higher tax level serve (inaudible) is supposed to bring the upper ones down. I
mean, that is equity, too. It is a tax grab, that is what it is, looking for
more money. Where can we get pockets of money? Here is a way we can get it right
here. Go back and put your heads together and see where we can gouge some more
money out of the tax system. They tell us we are getting 55 per cent. They tell
us we are supposed to be 55 per cent.
Paul Dicks, as minister, and the Premier had a news conference in November,
1999, and they told the people of this Province that effective January 1, you
are going to get reduced from 69 per cent to 62 per cent of federal tax. The
next January, 2001, it is going to be 55 per cent and this January it was going
to be 49 per cent, but they axed that last one. Actually, they axed the one
before too, but they did not tell us. What happened?
MR. MATTHEWS: They axed the tax.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, they axed the tax.
The federal tax was 17 per cent prior to 2000 when this announcement was
made, and 55 per cent of 17 per cent is 9.35 per cent. That is what our
provincial tax should be if they were telling us the truth. What is it? It is
10.57 per cent in the lowest bracket. In other words, we are paying 1.22 per
cent more; $1.22 on every $100 we are paying on taxes now, something that this
government told us we are not paying when we are. If they had to live up to
their commitment, we would be paying 8.33 per cent on every $100 of taxable
income; $8.33. Today we are paying $10.57. We are paying $2.24 more on every
$100 than we were when they promised us a tax cut. That is what we should be
paying. We should be paying $2.24 on a $100 less when they made the
announcement, and we are not. In fact, we are paying more. Talk to people who do
your taxes. Look at your own taxes. Talk to accountants. Talk to tax
specialists. Talk to anybody out there and look at the system, and they will
tell you that this government, basically, has not been truthful in this tax.
They haven't been truthful.
Doing one thing, and taking the brunt for it is one thing. I see some
integrity in that. Doing it and saying you are doing it and this is why we need
to do it, but doing it and going to the backdoor and taking it and saying you
are not doing it, there is no integrity in that at all. It is not telling the
truth.
We have a lot of members who want to speak on this so I am going to sit down,
Mr. Chairman, and allow other members to speak. When they are finished speaking,
and if there is still time left here today - and any government members are
finished speaking - I would like to get back up again because there are some
things I would like to say, but I do not want to take advantage of too much time
here. I had a few extra minutes here to speak but there are unfinished things I
need to say on this bill, and I will get a chance to do it.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the recognition to speak to this bill again, the one that I am
putting forward. I think it is important to respond to some of the erroneous
comments that have been made by the critic as it relates to this and other
comments, particularly as it relates to the dividend tax credit, and also I
think for the people of the Province to realize the comments that the member is
making with respect to income tax, indexation, bracket creep and also about our
own personal income tax reductions, because they are clearly not factual. Of
course, that is not an uncommon position for the member opposite to take to try
to spin and fearmonger and do his voodoo economics.
So let's try and set the record straight for the people of the Province so
that you can know - and I can say as well, the member opposite knows the rules
of the House. When he got up, his first comment was that I was not in the House
yesterday. No, I was not in the House yesterday; I was away for personal reasons
and I make no apology for it. I would ask the member opposite not to mention
that and to follow the rules of the House.
MR. SULLIVAN: When?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: When you opened your comments.
People in this House know I was not here the last couple of days for personal
reasons, and the first thing the member opposite did when he stood up was make a
comment about this.
AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't here either.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would not lower myself to break the rules of the House
knowingly on that issue, but I will speak to the bills because they are very
important.
I will also say that it is important that this new dividend tax credit -
there is nothing hidden. People of the Province know, and if they listened and
heard, this was actually read out in our Budget Speech. We read out this tax
increase. We also read out the tobacco tax increase, and we are proud of that.
We are not saying that it is a bad tax. We have not said people will go hungry
because we have increased the tax, like the member opposite talked about in
1985. We stand up here everyday and go through historical review of what
happened in the 1980s and they all shout and scream and say: Don't go back
there. That has nothing to do with us. Except, of course, when it is convenient.
I heard the member opposite talk about that again today.
There is nothing hidden here. This was read out in the Budget Speech. The
member opposite was not sure how much money would be achieved through this. In
my opening comments - I presume he may not have heard it. This is a $3 million
initiative by moving from 9 per cent to 5 per cent. Again, this is a choice that
we made. He chooses to call it a tax grab.
Now, it is interesting for the people of the Province - and I just want to
take a moment to go through this. Since I delivered my Budget Speech in March we
have had forty-seven items raised by the members of the Opposition everyday in
the House looking for more money. More money for roads, more money for this, for
that, for paving, for anything, for ferries, you name it. Well, it is a very
interesting approach. You have to ask for as much as you get, but of course when
you are not responsible and you are not accountable - you do not have to pay for
it. So it is easy to ask for all of this money.
I would say to the members opposite who ask for us to intervene, to pave
roads, to buy land out - I can go through all the list - to build more
facilities, to do all kinds of improvements and upgrades. On this side of the
House, we have made a conscious decision that our priorities are health and
education.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: According to our rules, Mr. Chairman, the minister has just
read from a document. She is obligated to hand that document over to us. She has
indicated that there are forty-seven instances on the document she is reading
from where we have asked for more money. I would like to see a copy of the
document. She is obligated, as Minister of the Crown, to provide that document
to us right now; to table it right now.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.
I would be very happy to table this, in fact, for the people of the Province.
Before I table it I would like to have an opportunity just to run through it. I
think it is very important to talk about.
CHAIR: So it is understood that the minister will table the document?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, it is understood.
It speaks to the comments that were made by the Leader of the Opposition in
that it says -
MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: I just wanted to add to the point of order too, Mr. Chair.
When she started the introductions she read from information and I asked at
the time for a copy too. Would she also table that, what she read on introducing
this bill? She did read from a document there, and I ask for that also to be
tabled when this is tabled.
CHAIR: To my knowledge the member did not ask for those documents at that
point in time. I will get clarification from the Table as to whether or not the
minister is required to table them.
MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) the hon. member knows the document she read from. I
expect she will table it if she knows the document she read from.
MR. SULLIVAN: There are two documents; one is on the (inaudible).
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.
I would say again to the member opposite that speaking notes are not
documents. When all ministers introduce a bill they use speaking notes and the
member opposite - I am sure in all your years of the House as former House
Leader - would be more aware of that information than anyone. I would imagine
you would know that.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: The rules are clear, whatever a Minister of the Crown reads
from, whether it be speaking notes, a presentation, a power point presentation,
you are obligated to table it; whether it is speaking notes or otherwise. If a
Minister of the Crown reads from a document in this House, our rules and
procedures and orders are clear, then you are obligated, no questions asked
whatsoever, no debate on it. The minister is obligated to table whatever she has
read from, including her speaking notes.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, to the point of order.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chair, to the point of order.
I think it needs clarity at this point, and probably the Chair can be of
assistance to us here. Is the hon. member suggesting that when a member of the
Opposition rises and reads a question that -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: I am not suggesting that it be tabled, but I am asking, Mr.
Chair, if the fact that somebody reads from a piece of paper, does that
automatically constitute that piece of paper as a document? I do not think so. I
think the hon. the Minister of Finance is quite right, we regularly as ministers
in the House, other members of the House, members on that side of the House,
use, on occasion, speaking notes that have been prepared by our officials;
whether they are our officials in government departments or whether they are
officials working in the Opposition Office. They are still, in a sense,
officials being paid by government; being paid by the public purse.
I would submit, Mr. Chair, that speaking notes are used regularly by all
members in this House, on both sides of this House, to support them in the
information that they are putting forward in the speeches that they are making.
I am submitting, Mr. Chair, that speeches that are written for members, briefing
notes that are prepared for ministers and hon. members, do not constitute
documents in the context of material that is required to be tabled in this House
on an ongoing basis. If so, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we quickly move to
replace this table here in the House because this table would not be able to
hold the level of paper, documentation, that would be required to be submitted.
Speaking notes, I submit - whether they are for members or ministers - do not
constitute documents, official documents, in terms of what government possesses
and should table as documents. There is a difference. There is a distinction,
and the hon. Minister of Finance, in referring to her speaking notes, was not
referring to documents, in my judgement, anymore than I was referring to
documents today when I was answering questions in the House.
I would submit that there is a distinction, a very clear distinction, and
there is, very clearly, that which should be submitted and that which is not
required to be submitted and tabled in the House.
CHAIR: To the point of order, the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, notwithstanding the protestations of the
Minister of Mines and Energy, the rules are clear. His seat mate, the Minister
of Works, Services and Transportation, in this House, only several weeks ago,
found out what those rules were, and I will inform him of what they are. First
of all: Ministers of the Crown, according to our Standing Orders, according to
the Standing Orders of our House, which we govern ourselves by, according to Beauchesne ,
Parliamentary Rules and Procedures , according to Marleau Rules and
Procedures in the House of Commons, Ministers of the Crown, if they read from a
document, are obligated, must, table that document. There is no distinction to
be made.
Those are not your rules, those are not my rules. Those are the rules that
were determined for us prior to us being elected, and those are the rules that
we must live by. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation just found
that out, and so has the Minister of Mines and Energy.
On a second point, he has talked about how members generally refer to
documents. Our Standing Orders are also clear, I say, Mr. Chair, to the Minister
of Mines and Energy, that a private member is not under the same obligation. A
private member does not have to table documents, things they are reading from,
or things from Hansard, or the Budget. The distinction is made because, as a
Minister of the Crown, you represent the ultimate law-making body in this
Province, which is the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Cabinet.
If you stand in this House and refer to a document, it is a government
document and you are obligated by the Standing Orders and rules of this House to
table that document. No distinction is to be made. That is the fact of the
matter, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to your speedy ruling on the needless and
nonsense point of order raised by the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, to the point of order.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I would submit to you for your further
consideration also, the comment that was made by the Opposition House Leader.
There is, in my judgement - and I stand to be further enlightened, if that is
necessary - a difference between reading from a document and making reference to
a document that you may or may not have in your hand.
I have documents that are in my office that I refer to in the course of
probably answering a question or debating an issue in the House. So, there is a
significant difference, Mr. Chair, I would submit, in government documents as
opposed to notes that are prepared for informational purposes, and there is a
further difference with respect to documents that are referred to as opposed to
documents that are read from or quoted directly from in the House in terms of
debate.
I would submit that I have not heard, and the hon. the Minister of Finance
can speak for herself, but I have not heard and I have not seen - and I am
pretty close to her - her reading from any document which you are asking now to
have tabled in the House. If it is a briefing note to which she has referred,
then I would submit that is quite dissimilar from a document from which she has
read, Mr. Chairman. I would ask you to take that into consideration.
CHAIR: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: What is at stake here is not the minister's judgement on
what he believes they can table or not table. What is at stake here are the
rules that govern all of us. I will read it for him now, so that he is clear. I
do not even know what he is protesting about. The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board has already agreed to table the documents; but, for
his further clarification, let me read the rules that are not my judgement, that
have nothing to do with any individual member's judgement here. It is what it
is. It is the rules and law of how we govern ourselves, and it is contained on
page 151 of Beauchesne under the heading Documents Cited.
Now, it says 495. "
(1) A Minister" - and I believe tha