Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 11 December 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 46)
2001-12-11
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 11, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 46
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, Chris Griffiths is an innovator with a sense
for market opportunities. In his first job at a music store he sensed there was
a lack of local people skilled in guitar repair. He traveled to the US to get
training in this field, and returned to the Province to start his own business
repairing and building custom guitars. Since then, he has continued to recognize
opportunities and innovate.
After six years of research and development, Chris patented and produced the
Griffiths Active Bracing System. It reduces the number of pieces in an acoustic
guitar body from thirty-four to ten, and reduces manufacturing time for those
parts from four-and-a-half hours to forty-five seconds. Also, the uninterrupted
vibration path generated inside the guitar produces a better sound than a
conventionally manufactured guitar.
Earlier this year, Chris Griffiths opened Garrison Guitars in Mount Pearl, a
state of the art guitar manufacturing plant. The company already has more than
fifty employees, and expects to make 16,000 guitars this year for export to the
US, the United Kingdom and Australia. The first year's production is already
sold out.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join
with me in recognizing Chris Griffiths on his spirt of entrepreneurship and
record of accomplishment.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to make a comment today about a good news story; a good news
story happening in my district. It is a situation where a entrepreneur, Mr. Bill
Barry of the Barry Group of Companies, turned a curse into an employment
opportunity. I speak about Atlantic Marine Products in Catalina.
This year, out of the total seal production take off the coast, 214,000 harp
seals, the Barry Group of Companies purchased 103,000. Out of those 103,000
pelts that they bought this year, I say to people opposite, there is only 30,000
left to be sold. Out of the 103,000 harp seals bought, this company produced
3,750 barrels of refined seal oil. That translates into 168,750 gallons of seal
oil.
Mr. Speaker, it is a situation where this company has taken this product to
its truly value-added stage. Once it leaves Atlantic Marine Products in
Catalina, it is ready for the consumer. With your permission, I have a sample of
the product that is being put forward at Atlantic Marine Products in Catalina.
This is a harp seal pelt.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Ready for the market, I say to members opposite;
employing forty-five people full-time, eighty-five people on a part-time basis
for fifty-two weeks of the year. This is a good news story and one that we
should all be very happy about.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: From the 168,750 gallons of seal oil, this is the end
result; the seal oil capsule which many people take. It is rich in Omega-3 fatty
acids and it is a common product on most drug store shelves here today.
This is a good news story and I would like to congratulate the Barry Group
and the employees at Atlantic Marine Products in Catalina.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to pay tribute to two volunteers who recently received the
Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer medal.
First I will talk of Joyce Churchill of Portugal Cove-St. Phillips. Joyce has
been a volunteer in her community for more than forty years. She has served as
mayor of her community and as a member of the school board for the area. Her
chief contribution, however, has been to the Autism Society of Newfoundland and
Labrador for which she has worked with exceptional dedication and is currently
the Chair.
The second volunteer is Heber Walters, also of Portugal Cove-St. Phillips.
Heber has given more than fifty years to volunteer activities and is
particularly well-known for his work in education and youth guidance. He served
for twenty-three years as mayor of the community and has served the Lions Club
at the local, provincial and national levels.
The contribution that these two individuals have made to their community and,
indeed, the Province a better place, and they are both deserving of recognition.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased also to count both of these individuals as friends.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in
paying tribute to these very active volunteers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate members of the Carol Curling Club in Labrador
West in particular, and the Carol Curling Club itself in general. On October 28,
two young curlers from Labrador West, Jenna Reid and Michael Costello, were
successful in becoming members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Canada Winter
Games team. The games will be held in Bathurst, New Brunswick in 2003.
On this past weekend, here in St. John's, the Carol Curling Club rink of
Barbra Pinsent and teammates Sandra Brawley, Georgina Hamlyn and Marcheta
Gallant captured the Women's Provincial Curling Championship and will
represent our Province at the national championships which will be held in St.
Thomas, Ontario in February.
This past weekend as well, Mr. Speaker, the curling rink of Rick Casmey and
teammates Gary Pinsent, Bob Brawley and Harvey Flynn narrowly missed becoming
the Provincial Senior Men's Champions during a very close final game.
Mr. Speaker, this is the same curling club that produced two members of the
provincial curling rink that last year won the World Junior Championships,
namely: Mike Adam and Mark Nichols.
Combined with the legendary Sue Ann Bartlett rink which captured more than a
dozen provincial championships truly makes all residents of Labrador West very
proud of the Carol Curling Club and their achievements.
I congratulate all curlers who took
part in the quest to represent our
Province and I wish them all success in the future.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to inform Members of this House of Assembly that last Tuesday
the Smart Labrador Initiative made the first live video connection on Smart
Labrador's Broadband network between the communities of Black Tickle and
Cartwright. The connection was made between the schools and the two communities
and involved both teachers and students.
The Smart Communities program was officially launched by Industry Canada on
June 5, 1999. It is a three-year program created to help Canada become a world
leader in the development and use of information and communication technologies
for economic, social and cultural development. The Smart Labrador Initiative was
one of only twelve projects selected from across Canada and is a $10 million
private-public partnership that will focus to enhance information technology in
Labrador communities.
The Smart Labrador Initiative will enable new services in health, education,
e-commerce and community life. It will serve as a demonstration of how
remoteness need only be a matter of geography.
Videoconferencing services will mean a reduction of travel time and travel
cost for anyone doing business in Labrador and will connect Labrador to the
world.
Mr. Speaker, I would like all members to join with me in congratulating the
people at Smart Labrador on what they have accomplished so far with this
initiative.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to bring greetings to a very special couple in the District of
Kilbride, who are celebrating their sixty-seventh anniversary, Jack and Mary
MacDonald.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: For those who know Jack and Mary, they are an institution
certainly within the district that I represent and have many friends throughout
the Province and indeed the country. Former ministers of agriculture would know
Jack's commitment to the industry. He has been a successful dairy producer and
farmer all of his life, even as a young child.
Jack, and the family itself, are noted as keen observers of the political
scene, and anybody who is interested can, at any time, go in and sit down in his
front room in his house and be entertained by stories of the anti-confederate
movement, his strong endorsement of a certain political party of which I happen
to be part, and I am not trying to politicize it. However, Mr. Speaker, the
commitment that this family, in particular Jack and Mary, have brought to life
in Newfoundland and Labrador certainly cannot be questioned.
Jack has been honored in many capacities, certainly as a member of the
Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame, and I think he will be remembered most for
his ongoing dedication and commitment to the agricultural industry in the
Province and in the country.
I ask you, Speaker, and certainly the Premier and all members, to join with
me in wishing them a very happy sixty-seventh anniversary. On December 13, two
days from now, they are hosting an open house, I think, from 2:00 in the
afternoon to 10:00 at night and have invited anybody who wishes to go in to join
with them in celebrating that, but only to bring best wishes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members that Newfoundland and
Labrador's application for admittance into The Energy Council of America has
been accepted. This past weekend, I participated in the council's annual
Global Energy and Environmental Issues fall conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico,
where the Province was formally accepted into this organization. Mr. Ed Foran,
Vice-Chair of NOIA, Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association, and Mr. Bill
Wells, President and CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, were also in
attendance to share this Province's proud moment, along with my officials and
For the information of hon. members, The Energy Council is a legislative and
industry stakeholders organization of ten energy-producing states ranging from
the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean. The member states produce more than 80
per cent of United States' oil and gas and includes leading coal, uranium,
hydro and other renewable energy-producing states. The Energy Council is a very
influential North American organization. The elected legislators and industry
representatives of the Council participate in the formation of energy policy at
all levels. Venezuela and Alberta are the only other international affiliates.
Newfoundland and Labrador is now the third international affiliate.
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that Newfoundland and Labrador has been
accepted into this organization. Membership will provide us with insight into
current energy policies and issues of other energy-producing jurisdictions and
permit the Province to capitalize on opportunities for marketing the Province's
resources, including to our most prospective market - the northeast United
States.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to announce today that next year Newfoundland
and Labrador will host a Consumers and Producers Energy Forum in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the top energy producers and customers from
the northeastern United States and members of the Energy Council's Executive
Committee will be in attendance. Mr. Speaker, these are the very people to whom
we want to showcase our oil, our gas, and our hydro resources. The forum will
allow large potential customers in the northeastern United States to become
familiar with Newfoundland and Labrador as an area that will be critical to
North America's future energy supply. Public and private sector participants
from the United States and Canada will discuss relevant topics and build
relationships between producers and consumers for the benefit, I believe, of us
all.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy: Obviously, on this side of the
House, we are pleased that Newfoundland's application has been accepted now
for the Energy Council of America. As the minister has indicated, it is a chance
for us to truly witness what takes place in other jurisdictions with respect to
the creation and purchase of energy resources.
Mr. Speaker, as well, with respect to the Consumers and Producers Forum on
Energy that the minister has alluded to, I think what is significant is what the
minister has indicated in his statement when he says that the forum will allow
large potential customers in the northeastern U.S. to become familiar with
Newfoundland and Labrador and the rich energy resources that we have available
to us.
My only caution, I guess, to the minister is that, we have to make sure that
our energy policy is not shaped by energy needs in other jurisdictions, such as
the northeastern United States. We have to ensure that we have an energy plan
which is conducive to our needs, to ensure that there is optimal benefit for all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Generally, Mr. Speaker, we welcome these announcements, and it shows the
direction in which we ought to go as a Province and as a jurisdiction in this
very important area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I heard of OPEC, but I have to say I had never heard of the Energy Council of
America, so I don't think it is an OPEC.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a useful forum, that we can learn
about other energy policies and find out how they maximize their return on their
resources. Hopefully we might learn something from them.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of markets, while we do have to sell the oil and energy
products of this Province, markets are not the problem. The real problem is
making sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians benefit from the resources
that we have, that we are developing, that we want to make sure that we get the
wealth that is produced for our own citizens.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, last night the federal budget made no provision for additional
health care funding for the Province. But the provincial government cannot place
all the blame on Ottawa, it must take some of the responsibility for the health
care crisis in our Province on the basis of its own mismanagement.
Could the Premier tell the people of this Province, what is your plan for the
delivery of health care services in this Province now that the federal Liberals
have abandoned us?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador understands a
couple of things: one, is that the government here cannot take responsibility
their own. It is acknowledged that there will be more challenges for every
single provincial and territorial government in the country as a result of the
add any additional monies either to equalization or to CHST. That will cause
some additional difficulties for us, which we will deal with in our budget in
March month. I have invited everyone back for a full discussion at that time.
Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone in this Province recognizes that we just
had a very successful series of health care forums, in which people came
together because they want to look at the options that are available to us going
into the future. We will continue with our plans for the rest of this fiscal
year and we will release all of our plans for next year when the time comes due
in March month.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to make some reference to those health care forums. On November
26, in response to a question by the Member for Trinity North, the Minister of
Health said that key elements of planning needed to be done in this Province in
order to have a strategic approach to health care and that those health care
forums would assist her in doing this.
Would the Premier not agree that this is an admission from the minister that
this government is spending $1.4 billion a year on health services without any
plan whatsoever?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition asking me, personally, the question
that one of his health critics asked the Minister of Health here some ten days
ago in the Legislature. I believe that the Member for Trinity North asked that
question, and also two supplementaries, in this Legislature - exactly the same
question. The answer was given clearly that every bit of funding that is
currently being spent in health care - unlike the belief of the Member for
Ferryland, who suggests there is $100 million wasted in health care - we believe
that every single cent that is currently being spent is needed and that, in
fact, there are some unmet needs in health care in Newfoundland and Labrador
that we are very much aware of and would very much like to be able to address
but cannot because of the budgetary circumstance at this point in time.
The record will show, Mr. Speaker, that we are spending more money on health
care, and there are a greater level of services available in the Province today
than ever in our history. That happens to be a fact. That is the fact. Now, are
there still some shortcomings? Yes. Is there a detailed plan in which every
single expenditure of every single cent is laid out in this Legislature by the
Minister of Health?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: The answer is no, but every single board is accounting
for every cent that they spend and they all want more, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier has acknowledged that he doesn't have a plan, and the minister
has acknowledged that she doesn't have a plan. Over two weeks ago, John
Peddle, the Executive Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards
Association, stated that there was a lack of provincial strategic planning in
the health care system with no operational goals, benchmarks or standards.
Would the Premier explain how it is possible for a government in power for
over twelve years to spend over $12 billion on health services without a
strategic plan, without sufficient performance standards, to even ensure that
the system is operating efficiently?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, every single program and service that is
available in Newfoundland and Labrador today in the health care sector is being
delivered as part of a plan for the board that is delivering the service. Every
single year there are a series of requests that come forward to the government
to do certain things more than are being done today, because we acknowledge we
are not meeting all the needs and funding all the requests.
There is a plan, Mr. Speaker, that is reviewed annually by every single board
and there is a plan that, obviously, we are short of cash to fund every desired
service. But for anyone to suggest - and I guess maybe now the Leader of the
Opposition is agreeing with the Member for Ferryland - that there is a bunch of
money in health care that is being wasted. We do not think, Mr. Speaker, that
there is any money being wasted in health care. We think it needs some more
money, and I would like to hear a clear position from the Opposition with
respect to that, because we do have the Member for Ferryland on the record
saying there is at least $100 million a year wasted.
Mr. Speaker, if in fact the Leader of the Opposition was so interested in
health care planning as he suggests he might be today, maybe he might have shown
up at the forum in Corner Brook, in his own riding that he represents -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - and in fact health care was not a priority for him. He
was busy doing something else that day, because health care was not a priority
for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier to take his seat.
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the words that I am quoting are the words of the minister and
also the words of John Peddle, the Executive Director of the Newfoundland and
Labrador Health Boards Association.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: These are not my words.
Mr. Speaker, George Tilley, CEO of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's,
said just last week that we really have to develop some long-term strategies;
which, of course, implies that there are none.
Would the Premier not agree that the lack of a long-term strategy for the
biggest and most important department of government constitutes mismanagement of
health care in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see we have come full circle in a month in the Legislature; we
are back to the language that the Leader of the Opposition used in the first few
days when he was misquoting and misrepresenting the Auditor General's concerns
and asking questions about potential mismanagement, Mr. Speaker.
The fact of the matter is that we acknowledge, as the government, that we are
not meeting all of the needs and demands in health care. We say that quite
openly and honestly to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have requests
every single day in this Legislature from members opposite to provide more home
support, to provide other services, to provide dialysis, to provide mammography
at a venue closer to the constituents that they represent, and we know that we
are not meeting the need at the level that members opposite would like to have
it met; but we are not willing to acknowledge, like the Opposition would like to
try to believe or want to believe themselves, that there is any mismanagement or
that there is a waste of $100 million a year in health care because it is not
happening Mr. Speaker.
The forums are talking about where we do go from here on a more strategic
basis because we are open and honest enough to acknowledge that it is going to
be very difficult, if not impossible, even to maintain the service levels that
we have today when everybody wants to improve them and expand them, because we
cannot get the Opposition to support us in trying to secure more funding. They
are out there trying to make people believe that there is mismanagement and
waste -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - when in fact there is not enough money, Mr. Speaker,
and we are trying to secure some more.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We cannot support what does not exist.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Peddle also stated that there is no
evaluation and monitoring of the entire health care system. Given this lack of
checks and balances, would the Premier explain how his government measures
whether it is doing the job right or even doing the right job?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We do take some comfort in a couple of things. We take some comfort in
knowing that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have repeatedly suggested
that their number one priority is health care. As a result, 44 per cent of the
discretionary spending of the Budget by this government is in health care. Mr.
Speaker, it is almost twice as much as the expenditure on any other program area
in the government. We know we are doing the right thing, Mr. Speaker, in terms
of making health care the number one priority.
We also know, and it is witnessed every day in this Legislature by members
opposite standing up with unmet needs, that it is still not enough. There is not
$100 million wasted. In fact, every single plan is scrutinized every year
through audited statements. As well, Mr. Speaker, in asking for their budgets,
they go through a program review with the Department of Health and Community
Services so that we can know which things we can fund and those that we
unfortunately cannot fund. Every single year, Mr. Speaker, there is an exercise
gone through in the Budget. I know the hon. member, the Leader of the
Opposition, has not been here for it before, but I invite him to come back to
the Budget debate, and he will get a full chance to examine every single request
in health care and every other area - those that the government has said it can
meet and those that unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to meet
again this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, could the Premier explain to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador how he expects to get a blank cheque from Ottawa, when his minister and
senior officials in this Province acknowledge that there is no strategic plan?
That is just not good business practice and it certainly is not good government,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it has become obvious to everybody in this Legislature and the people
of the Province that with the support of the Leader of the Opposition we will
get no cheques from Ottawa for anything.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Not for R and D, not for research and development. Now,
the same Leader of the Opposition, less than two weeks ago, said: I will join
you in Ottawa in your fight to increase equalization and fight for the clawback
and get some other revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador. His version of
helping is to describe in this Legislature that we have no accountability, that
we want a blank cheque; and that is supposed to help us convince the people in
Ottawa that they should send more money to Newfoundland and Labrador.
So, Mr. Speaker, people are seeing through - they are seeing through - the
shallowness of the Leader of the Opposition the fact that his only interest is
political power in Newfoundland and Labrador, and he will stand here and suggest
that everything we are doing is wrong.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: While at the same time suggesting he is going to try to
help support us get more money from Ottawa, which we badly need.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador:
What is the consequence of Liberal mismanagement of health care in this
Province? Does it mean further reduction in services? Does it mean layoffs? Does
it mean bed closures? Or does it, in fact, mean hospital closures? What are the
consequences, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to report that the consequences so far in the last five years have
been: increased expenditures; improvements in service delivery in Newfoundland
and Labrador; dialysis in places like St. Anthony, Clarenville, Grand Falls,
that never existed before; mammography services out in the regions that never
existed before; better access to diagnosis than ever existed before; more
doctors in the Province than we ever had in history, contrary to what the
Opposition suggests. That is the record of mismanagement that we bring to the
table, Mr. Speaker. Improved and increased services in every region of
Newfoundland and Labrador for the last five years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we are going to be debating all of the
future of health care through the conclusion of the forum discussions and its
report, and in the Budget in March month. We will gladly lay out for the people
of the Province what the plans are for next year and the year beyond at that
point in time.
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 questions today are for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance
said yesterday, and printed in The Telegram today, that provinces like
Newfoundland and Labrador signed on to a CHST deal to pump new money into social
programs on a per capita basis because they were assured of improvements to that
equalization program.
The minister said this morning on CBC radio: The reason our Premier signed
this agreement at this point in time was contingent on the fact they were going
to do something about equalization.
I want to ask the minister, who gave the minister those assurances? Was it
the federal Minister of Finance, our federal minister in Cabinet, or was it the
Prime Minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, when the ten Premiers and the territorial
leaders signed the agreement on CHST, it was on the understanding, clearly, that
this would be a part of an overhaul on the equalization program. All of the
premiers believed, particularly those who are of equalization receiving status,
which are seven provinces, they would be supportive of CHST, because everybody
knows CHST, or the program that is used to provide health and post-secondary
services and social services, is based on per capita. Everybody understands that
provinces like Ontario and Quebec would do much better than provinces with
smaller populations. Now this is very important.
I would say that it was clearly the understanding that this would be part of
a process that would further look into the equalization program so that we can
benefit from the services for the services for the people of the Province.
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.
Apparently the Finance Minister is suffering from amnesia if she doesn't
know, and I hope that is not contagious among finance ministers, because it has
happened, I say to the minister, in the past.
I want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: If she doesn't know who told her
or who told the government, what were those assurances? Did the federal
government tell the minister that they would remove the cap on equalization,
that they would move from a five- to a ten-province standard or that they would
reduce or eliminate clawbacks on our non-renewable resources?
Minister, what were the assurances that you were given?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the member, in his
low tones, that I do not have amnesia. In fact, I am quite aware of the
discussions that were held. I can honestly say -
MR. J. BYRNE: Answer the question (inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would love to try to answer the question, I say to the
Member for Cape St. Francis, because it is a very important issue.
MR. J. BYRNE: Go ahead. Go ahead.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: Be quiet, Jack. Have another doggy biscuit, boy.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is an important issue.
Mr. Speaker, obviously when the people of the Province realize, and they do,
that we are spending $1.4 billion, a growth of over 40 per cent - the member
opposite tries to allude to mismanagement - 40 per cent more money in health
care when we are only getting over $300 million in CHST, obviously we would be
focused more on improving equalization.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we were under the impression that the ceiling would be
lifted, not for one year but would be lifted. We have made that quite clear. The
member opposite knows. We made a presentation to the Senate Committee on
Finance, and the Premier made a presentation as well. It has been very clear. We
have been honest with the people of the Province. We are adamantly supporting
the federal government changing equalization, as are all the premiers. This
Premier led the charge and got approval for unanimity for equalization changes
at the last Premier's Conference, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer quickly.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Our position is clear and on the record.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite: What is your position?
Give us any position on health care or equalization. Share it with us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, final supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Apparently I have hit a nerve. The minister doesn't know who told her. If
that is not amnesia, it is selective amnesia. The minister doesn't know what
all the assurances were, other than just a cap.
I want to ask the minister now: The Premier over there sitting next to her
signed a document which binds Newfoundland and Labrador to a five-year
agreement. Did anyone in the federal government sign the assurances that the
minister said she received and will she table the documents of those assurances?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member usually does better research
than what he is exhibiting and showing here today. He knows, I think, that the
Premier of the Province, as I happen to be right now, was not involved in those
meetings. This is all from a year ago, in September. I was the Health Minister
at the time, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you quite clearly, if he wants to know
what the commitment is all he needs to do - he is usually very good at doing
research, I give him credit for that - is to take out the communique from the
First Ministers' Meeting, which was the Prime Minister of the country and all
the Premiers. They met in Winnipeg. It is in writing. They commit to the
five-year reinstatement of CHST, which I was on the public record at the time as
saying wasn't enough, but the premiers agreed it was all they were going to
get. Nobody signed anything, Mr. Speaker. It was a communique at the end of a
First Ministers' Conference. He is an honourable member, Mr. Speaker, he knows
exactly what I am talking about.
In that same document, Mr. Speaker, there is a reference by the Prime
Minister of the country, and all the First Ministers, saying the Finance
Ministers will immediately begin a full review of equalization. They were tasked
to do so by the Prime Minister of the country, who is the same Prime Minister
today, and by the ten Premiers and three territorial leaders, some of whom are
different today.
That is in the communiqu from September, 2000, and he can gladly look at it
- I am sure he does this kind of research all the time - and he will see the
commitments that are there. He would read it, as would anybody, and understand
that the Prime Minister of the country committed to a review of equalization
which, to our disappointment and our consternation, has not yet begun. I thought
they were going to help us get it started.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the Premier: His Finance Minister said this morning, at around
8:50, on CBC Radio's The Morning Show , the reason our Premier signed an
agreement at this time was contingent of the fact they were going to do
something about equalization. Is the Premier now saying that what the Finance
Minister said this morning was wrong and there was no agreement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me just take a minute for purposes of
clarity. I know you want the real answer. You are always interested -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming he asked the question because
he wanted the actual facts.
Mr. Speaker, it has been represented in all of the country, since September
of the year 2000, when the last First Ministers' Conference occurred with the
Prime Minister, the premiers and the territorial leaders attending, in their
communiqu they indicated that there would be a reinstatement of CHST for five
years, which was reaffirmed in the Budget yesterday. They indicated that the
Finance Ministers would be tasked to immediately start a review of equalization,
including removing the cap - the cap or the ceiling.
Mr. Speaker, that has been portrayed in the public ever since as an agreement
between the provinces and the territories. No one signed anything, but every
single leader agreed to the communiqu that contained those components. It has
been portrayed in the country since then as an agreement between the provinces
and the federal government. Nobody signed, physically, a particular document,
but everyone has treated it as such since then.
If you want to argue over the words instead of dealing with the facts then
that shows that they are really not interested in the issue. Again, they are
just trying to score some political points instead of dealing with the facts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the Special Panel on Corporate Concentration in
the Newfoundland and Labrador Fishing Industry recently released its report.
While the panel was not mandated to look into accusations of anti-competitive
activity, it talks extensively and raises concerns about relationships between
processors, relationships between fishermen and processors, and a general
feeling of mistrust that runs throughout the industry.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is:
After reading the report, what are the minister's conclusions about
anti-competitive activity and the problems associated with that in the industry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The reason that the panel was not asked to investigate the anti-competitive
nature of the accusations that the members opposite made is because they are
being investigated by the Competition Bureau of Canada. I understand from the
Leader of the Opposition that these investigations are still ongoing. We are not
privy to that because it is my understanding that the Competition Bureau does
not give that type of information. They certainly have not given it to us. His
leader, last week, said in one of the media that the investigation was ongoing
and we will wait to see what that report brings.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier.
Despite the huge federal government surpluses, over $17 billion in the year
ending March 31, another $13.5 billion in the first of half of this fiscal year,
it appears that Liberal stockings in this Province will hang limp by the chimney
this Christmas, with nothing but a lump of coal for Newfoundland and Labrador in
yesterday's Budget. How is it, Mr. Speaker, that his government, the longest
standing Liberal government of the country, with the former Premier, Brian
Tobin, in the federal Cabinet, has no influence with the Liberal government in
Ottawa? How is that, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would think that the question that the Leader of the NDP, the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is asking reflects the fact that he, like us, is very
disappointed that there wasn't some funding made available through either CHST
or a change in equalization to provide for transfers to a Province like
Newfoundland and Labrador so that we can meet more of the needs that are in this
Province going unmet; and we acknowledge they are going unmet because of our
inability to do so.
If that is the nature of the question, then I am glad to see that he shares
our concerns because, to use phraseology, I guess some stockings, to use his
language, might have a lump of coal in them. We were hoping there would be
the people right across the country, including here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. We are on record, through the Minister of Finance and myself, as
saying that while we understand some of the expenditure choices that were made,
that we are very disappointed that there weren't some other choices made that
would reflect some possible improvements in the Treasury in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, so far this Premier has no made progress on the equalization
clawback, no progress on change in the equalization formula, no progress on
restoring health care dollars from Ottawa, and no progress on necessary
infrastructure funding. What I want to know, Mr. Speaker is: What is this
Premier going to do to get real action from Ottawa, other than writing letters
to the editor, like he did last weekend?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understood, from a couple of weeks ago, that we had a commitment in this
House that all parties - the NDP, the Official Opposition and ourselves - agree
that we are not getting our fair share, as we would define it, from the
questions today from the Leader of the Opposition are not particularly helpful.
If he suggests that we are looking for a blank check and those kinds of things,
then it is going to be hard to take those kinds of words and then change his
stance when he goes to Ottawa with us. Maybe we will think about leaving him
home and just two of us will go.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do understand that this
House is of one mind, that we all collectively agree, that there is not a proper
Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are going to strive every day to try to change
the circumstance to our advantage and favour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
MR. TAYLOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for The Straits
& White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I just want to correct the Premier on a comment that he made in his comments
on health care and cuts. He spoke about how St. Anthony hospital was now the
proud owner of a new renal dialysis unit. I guess, for lack of a better way of
putting it, I would just like to inform the Premier that, in trying to deal with
a shortfall in their budget just this past fall, they canceled the renal
dialysis unit in St. Anthony and also -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is really no point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the Premier to stand and
apologize and withdraw the remark on a statement he made that I said there is
$100 million wasted in the health care system. The written record of Hansard
will show what I said, when I said it back a year-and-a-half ago, and it is
still there for the reading. I ask the Premier to stand and withdraw that remark
that was said untruthfully.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier, to the point of order..
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know that there will be enough interest raised on this issue as a result of
this discussion that people will actually look at Hansard. If it does not say
what I said, then I gladly apologize. I have understand and read it and I have
produced it in this Legislature several times, that there is $100 million wasted
in health care. The comment is attributed to the member clearly.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to move the following Private Member's Resolution:
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has done nothing in
twelve years to halt or slow down the rapid social and economic decline in rural
communities; and
WHEREAS the government's Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth is all
process and no action;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House condemn the government for its
failure to develop a realistic plan to maintain economically and socially viable
communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to present the following petition to this House of
Assembly.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS the government has not yet dealt property with the owners of property
damaged by flooding associated with tropical storm Gabrielle in September, and
continues to leave people with no clear answers three months after the event;
and
WHEREAS the government is discriminating by offering just 70 per cent of the
appraised value of a home to those who cannot afford their own repairs; and
WHEREAS other provinces have been much more swift and compassionate in their
response to similar tragedies within their borders;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to immediately provide fair and reasonable compensation offers to all those
affected by flooding associated with tropical storm Gabrielle.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, on a daily basis I get calls from constituents in this region of
the Province, in particular in my own District of St. John's East, people
whose homes were impacted upon by what happened some three months ago in this
Province as a result of Gabrielle. These individuals have suffered losses and
they have sought some form of compensation from government. I know the minister
will say yes, we have issued a few cheques, Mr. Speaker, we have given some help
to a few people, but the fact remains that the vast majority of individuals who
have been impacted upon as a result of what happened some three months ago have
not found a solution to their problems. They are frustrated, Mr. Speaker. The
process is slow.
I keep hearing complaints, Mr. Speaker, that too many home owners, upon
submitting their claims and trying to finalize and conclude their claims, are
being presented with offers which do not represent 100 per cent of the losses, I
say to the minister, and I say, Mr. Speaker.
What is happening in some cases, if people are prepared to accept maybe 60
per cent or 70 per cent of the appraised value, people are accepting that
because in some cases they do not have the financial ability to get the work
completed, Mr. Speaker, and then to present the receipts and the invoices that
are requested by officials in the minister's department to have the work
completed. In fact, I am hearing from some home owners, Mr. Speaker, that they
feel like they are criminals simply because a storm affected their homes, they
suffered losses, and when they go to the officials in the minister's
department they are not getting the satisfactory results that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps saying that there is a federal program in
place. Well, Mr. Speaker, if there is a federal program in place, why doesn't
the hon. minister go to his federal counterparts -
MR. LANGDON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing, to this House and to
the people in the public, that we are scrutinizing the bills that have been
presented to us. We will not pay any person any bills that we cannot validate.
It is a process. It is taxpayers dollars. We will go through it. We have to be
accountable at the end and if we do not do it properly, then obviously, we will
not be able to be -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on a point of order.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If I may respond to what the minister just said.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member had his three minutes to present his petition and the hon.
member's time is up.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: By leave?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. LUSH: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: I thank the hon. the Government House Leader.
Mr. Speaker, what this petition indicates is that there are many residents in
this region of the Province, in particular in this portion of the City of St.
John's, who have not found any satisfaction or resolution to a problem,
through which - was nothing to do through their own fault, Mr. Speaker. There
was a natural occurrence, there was a natural event and they seek some
assistance and help from a government that has been obviously insensitive and
has not addressed the direct needs and concerns of the people of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition. 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 to pave
approximately one kilometer of road in Jamestown and approximately six
kilometers of road leading to, and including part of the community of Winter
Brook, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, here are two communities - one that just celebrated their 100 th
Anniversary a couple of years ago. They are still waiting to get the main road
to their community paved. This past year we seen two kilometers allotted by the
minister to be paved coming up through the town of Winter Brook. The connection
of the road from Winter Brook to Jamestown, which is approximately six
kilometers left to be paved there, and they are asking the minister to look at
putting this six kilometers in his budget for the coming fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, there is a business on this particular road, a sawmill. It is
one of the biggest sawmills in Newfoundland and Labrador. In talking with the
owner of that particular sawmill, Mr. Dingwall, he informs me that the lumber
that he produces at Jamestown Lumber, most of it goes south of the border into
the United States. This is the only piece of dirt road that he has to contend
with. It is causing great problems there with operating the sawmill, with the
dust coming from the road and having to continue to sharpen his saws and knives
and this sort of thing.
AN HON. MEMBER: How many kilometers of road?
MR. FITZGERALD: Six kilometers, I say to the minister, just six
kilometers that need to be paved there. The road was never paved. It was
upgraded approximately five years ago - upgraded and made ready for paving.
People in the community fully expected their road to be paved the following year
because that is the way that it was presented to them.
I suggest to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and I
suggest to the Premier, that it is probably the cheapest six kilometers of road
that will be paved in Newfoundland and Labrador. The roads are upgraded; the
ditching has been done; the culverts have been put in; the Class A stone has
been put on it. All they need is to put the finishing level of stone on this
particular road and lay the pavement down.
The Member for Terra Nova knows full well of what I speak about here. It has
been brought to his attention when he was the member there. The cry has been
heard in this House for many years, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue to make it
until the people living in those communities receive a decent road to drive over
like everybody else in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a reasonable
request and I fully support the petition presented here today on behalf of the
people from Jamestown and Winter Brook.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in the House of the Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in
legislative session convened, to present a petition of the undersigned residents
of the Connaigre Peninsula and supporters; and
WHEREAS current big game laws require non-residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador to pay a fee that is approximately eight times that of residents for
moose and fifteen times as much for caribou in the inland part of the Province
and a licensed guide is required, but present laws permit non-residents small
game hunting rights equivalent to those of residents at no extra cost;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to impose equivalent regulations concerning the hunting of small game by
non-residents, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I support this petition because the people of the Connaigre
Peninsula believe that the small game resource in this Province is as important
as the big game resource. We can avail of the revenue that could come from this
resource to do the necessary studies and research into the effects of the small
game hunting pressure, and also the research and studies that are needed with
respect to the effects of predation on our small game and exploring the
different ways that we can expand our wildlife resources to make sure that we
get the maximum amount of benefit from those resources.
Our small game resources are under a lot of hunting pressure in the Province.
We want to make sure that if non-residents are going to come in and avail of
these resources then they would be expected to pay a reasonable amount to be
allowed to avail of these resources.
The people of the Connaigre Peninsula believe that people from outside our
country, particularly the people on the South Coast coming from the Islands of
St. Pierre et Miquelon - to hunt the partridge, the rabbit, the wildlife on the
South Coast of our Province - that they would be required to pay a reasonable
amount to have that privilege. When these people come from outside of our
country, they come in large numbers with dogs combing the countryside looking
for these small game. The people of Connaigre Peninsula believe it is time now
that we maximize that benefit.
I support this petition, and I hope that the minister will put the mechanism
in place to do something about it; to study it and find out if it is possible to
do that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: When, Your Honour, was going through the Answers to Questions
for which Notice has been Given - my colleague asked me to do this. She stood up
to give Answers to Questions but, Your Honour, obviously did not see her; but
since she is not here we will have to let it go.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 18, Bill 40, second reading of a bill, An
Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Uniformed
Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to support the initiatives outlined in this bill for the
purposes of addressing changes in the bill,
An Act To Amend The Uniformed
Services Pensions Act. These provisions will, for the first time, allow some
significant changes that were currently not available to police and correctional
officers, and also some members of the St. John's Regional Fire Department.
The purposes of the amendment are to bring the Uniformed Services Pension
Plan in compliance with certain provisions of the Pension Benefits Act, the act
that regulates all pension plans in the Province, to facilitate the transfer of
pensionable service from the plan for part-time employees who move on into
full-time positions.
Mr. Speaker, government is committed to ensuring consistency of benefits for
employees under government-sponsored pension plans where reasonably possible,
and amending this plan to comply with the Pension Benefits Act will give members
more flexible termination options and will give spouses of the deceased plan
members more choices to accommodate their individual needs at the time.
Mr. Speaker, it will also facilitate the proper division of pensions by the
courts, in cases of marriage breakdowns, thereby creating greater flexibility
and protections for each of the partners.
As well, permitting full-time employees to receive credit for previous
part-time service brings this plan in line with other plans for government
employees.
Again I would say, Mr. Speaker, these changes are supported by the union.
They have been ones, I know, that have been asked for, for a period of time. I
would be happy to go through each of the pieces, but I believe these are good
changes to the plans: plans that will allow these people now to move and
transfer part-time into the full-time plan, and also, as I have pointed out,
more benefits for members of deceased plan holders and, as well, in the case of
marriage breakdown, it secures the income for people. I would be happy to answer
any questions as the debate moves on.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise, too, to make a few comments and also to certainly ask a few questions
that I am sure the minister, in closing of second reading, might want to comment
on, or certainly with leave during the course of that, to be able to explain
their rationale in certain instances here.
Overall, it appears fairly straightforward. There are areas where I think
everybody would agree that it is important to have a consistency of benefits in
certain plans within reasonable limits, to ensure that there are consistencies
within the plan. With reference to a few of the points here: commuted value,
that is defined under the Pension Benefits Act. That particular point is fairly
straightforward.
Also it makes reference, in a particular
section here,
section 9.1 of the
act, clause 4 of the bill, it goes on to mention under (c) "a return of the
contributions made by that employee, with interest at a rate prescribed, for
periods of pensionable service credited...". My understanding before, if
you had five years, you could not get it back. That is my understanding, and
right now somebody with less than five years can elect, within 180 days, a
return of the contributions made by the employee for periods of pensionable
service. They can, if you worked in the system and had benefits, for instance.
A subsequent section, I think, deals with it. If you had, let's say, four
years, and later on you came back in the service again and you had taken out
your pension, you can go back and buy up, basically pay for those years again
for the service you already had before. I think that might be mentioned in
clause 7 of the bill under section (6), if the minister is following there. It
says, "A former employee with at least 5 years pensionable service whose
employment terminated ... and who did not receive a refund of contributions may
... make the same election as a terminating employee under
section 9.1."
In the bill, too, I say to the minister, under clause 5,
section 10.(1), on
the bottom of page 5 of the bill, "Where a person, who was covered under a
pension plan established under this Act or a predecessor of this Act, ceased to
be employed and received a payment or transfer on termination and later becomes
an employee, that person may be credited with the prior pensionable service that
may be prescribed."
In other words, if someone was covered under the plan before, another act,
ceased to be an employee and they come back again and work again, if they have
received a payment or transfer or whatever, and they become an employee again,
they have the right to be able to use that service too. I think that is the
intent of that. That is how I see it. If that is the case, I certainly agree
with that. If you worked in a service and had X number of years in the service
and discontinued the service and came back again and got employed in the service
again, you have the right to be able to use those earlier years that you had in
the service there and be able to make that particular election to do that. That
is my understanding on that particular one.
In clause 7 of the bill, I have a question. I am wondering if there is a
renumbering that needs to be done here. In clause 7 of the bill, and I am
referring now to the consolidated because the bill, the one listed, was in 1990.
There was a consolidation of that in 1991. I am looking at the consolidated one,
on The Uniformed Services Pension Act. Clause 7 of the bill, I say to the
minister, says here - and hopefully the minister will be able to answer this -
clause 7.(1) "Subsection 22(3) of the Act is repealed." In other
words, number 1 in clause 7.(1) subsection 22(3) of the Act is repealed. So, if
you repeal
section 22.(3) in that act, and I am looking at that now, wouldn't
section 4 now become
section 3? And wouldn't they be numbered accordingly
there? I would assume they would, if we are going to repeal a section, because
this bill is not replacing that. Clause 7.(1) is not replacing subsection 22.(3)
with another new wording. If that is repealed, the act now has in
section 22,
five different subsections, 22.(1) to 22.(5). They are adding in a new one
called 6, as you can see here in this clause, so wouldn't that new one become
5, and then 5 and 4 move up to 3 and 4?
I know the semantics of it and the proper wording. I am wondering whether
that should be the case, because I do not see anything replacing the
section we
are repealing there. Maybe the minister could make a note of that, too, and have
that addressed there; because when we refer to a
section in the future obviously
we want to make sure that is the proper wording there.
With the consolidated version I made a note on it. I wanted to make sure that
I have the exact sections that pertain there for future reference. I think we
need to have that, of course, in the consolidated version.
Also, there is another interesting one here. I am just wondering - the
minister, I am sure, has Bill 40 with her - if she also has Bill 59, because
there is a question here in both of those bills that refers to the one section.
It refers to the one
section in the act. We are talking about The Uniformed
Services Pension Act, Bill 40, the one that is now being debated. If the
minister would look at clause 8,
section 24.(2) "A deferred pensioner's
entitlement is the pension he or she would have received had he or she been 65
years of age on the date of death." That is
Section 24.(2) that is put in
there. The clause we are dealing with, clause 8, says, "Section 24 of the
Act is repealed...". So, Minister, we are repealing
section 24 in the
current act, and I have a copy here of the consolidated act, we are repealing
the whole thing and replacing it with what is here. We are putting back under
this new act, subsection 24.(2), the one that I just read.
If you open Bill 59, just for a minute, and you look at the last page of the
bill, page 4, clause 4, it says, "Subsection 24(2) of the Act is repealed
and the following substituted:...". Wouldn't that be both? Both bills
repeal subsection 24.(2) of the act. Bill 40 repeals the whole
section 24 of the
act. This bill repeals 24.(2) and puts back in its place a new 24.(2) but it is
not the same 24.(2) that is coming in under this new bill, so we have two bills
now, both amending
section 24.(2), one with one wording and one with a different
wording. I would like to get an answer to know basically what we are debating
here in the act. If that is a matter of getting that numbered correctly, I would
certainly like to hear from the minister because it is kind of difficult to
debate a particular
section or clause when I see the same one being amended two
different ways, by two different acts.
MR. J. BYRNE: Are they confused?
MR. SULLIVAN: They have me confused, I say to my colleague from Cape St.
Francis, because Bill 40 and Bill 59 -
MR. TULK: That is not hard to do.
MR. SULLIVAN: Sometimes it is not, I say to the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Rural Development.
When Bill 40 and Bill 50,
section 24.(2) of the Uniform Services Pensions Act
is amended in two different ways, it creates a problem for me because I do not
know which
section 2 we are going to talk about. You have two
section 2's as I
see it. I certainly will await an explanation from the minister on that. If she
is working on it, or if she has one now, I would like to hear it. If not, I
certainly can just make some other comments here in the meantime on this.
The basic act being debated here is to amend the Uniformed Services Pensions
Act, and the general thrust of it, yes, I can certainly agree with, where the
minister is coming from with government on this particular act, because there
are certain discrepancies and inequities out there now in terms of pensions. I
think we need to be able to allow those particular inequities to get addressed
because if someone is into a specific - in other words, it gives more options
even to the spouse of a pensioner. It gives certain options that were not there
before. You are not locked into one specific thing.
In the case of death, if it is going to come back where there is no spouse or
children surviving, it would go to the particular estate of that individual. We
certainly cannot find any fault with supporting those types of things.
Some of the other sections here,
section 30 of the act, clause 9 of the bill,
is certainly bringing it in line with marriage breakdown - as the minister
referenced - with setting aside and setting out here exactly what would happen
in that specific case.
On the specific issues here we do not have a major problem at all, but there
are two things - I will just repeat them once more before I sit down, just to
make sure. The minister might be able to address these when she has the
opportunity to stand up again.
The first point I made was, if the bill should be renumbered differently in
the act, in
section 24 of the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, if we are
repealing clause 3, if it is being repealed, wouldn't the other numbers move
up accordingly?
The last one I asked, and once again repeat, Bill 40 and Bill 59 both amend
the Uniformed Services Pensions Act. Bill 40 repeals the whole thing and
replaces it with another one, and Bill 59 just amends
section 24.(2).
I will just await an explanation. Maybe there is a valid explanation. If
there is, I would certainly like the minister to indicate that. I cannot see one
there myself, to be honest with you, an explanation for that, other than it
might be an oversight.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I stand in my place today to say a few words on Bill 40,
An Act To Amend The
Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. I have been looking forward to getting on
my feet and saying a few words on this bill and many other bills. In particular,
I am waiting for the Public Tender Act to be called, Bill 25. I am really
interested in that bill.
MR. E. BYRNE: I don't think they are going to call it.
MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am sad to say, if they won't call it, I don't
know if they are afraid to call it, Madam Speaker, but I have been very much
looking forward to speaking on the changes to the proposed Bill 25, the changes
to the Public Tender Act, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation.
I will say this. I will qualify the few comments I will make in that, on a
finance bill such as this, the House will give us some latitude to speak on most
any concern or finance concern with respect to the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador and the policies of the government in power today, and the policies
that they should have in place.
With respect to Bill 40,
An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act,
the Member for Ferryland made some good points with respect to the concerns that
he had. I will not beleaguer those points, Madam Speaker, other than to say that
it is too bad that this government has not done something with respect to the
public service pensioners. We know that these people have been fighting for a
decent increase for the past ten or twelve years and have not received any
increase worth talking about. These people are on a fixed income. They have not
had an increase for years and years. We know that the cost of living has
increased dramatically over the years and this government has done nothing to
address the concerns of those individuals. I have supported it in the past, and
members on this side of the House have supported an increase to these
individuals, but for some reason this government has refused to address it. As a
matter of fact, during the last election these people, the public service
pensioners, were promised some action after the election. What happened?
Typically, broken promises by the Liberal government.
Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the polities of this Administration. I am
amused, every time I hear the Premier of the Province, every chance he gets,
standing in the House of Assembly here, in the media, talking about this group,
the Opposition, the PCs of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the
Official Opposition, having no policies. That is not quite true. I want to
remind the Premier, it is not true at all, because in the last election we put
out a policy manual that the people in the Province, the critics, even the CBC
panel with Mr. Fenwick, who said that this policy manual has substance and that
the Liberal policy manual had none.
I have to say this, and I do not remember the date, but this past spring the
Premier of this Province stood in his place in this House of Assembly and
actually made this statement. I could not believe it, Madam Speaker. He made
this statement, and I am sure the people will not believe it either, and it was
confirmed again today by the Deputy Premier, he said what he would do, before
the next election, is have in place all of our policies and we would have none
for the next election. That is their plan. They are void of ideas.
MR. TULK: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Rural Development.
MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify, through a point of
order, what the hon. gentleman has said: The Liberal Party has always been
willing to take good ideas regardless of where they come from. Obviously, we
implement all of the Blue Book. All of our own were twice as good as yourselves,
and what is the need of electing it. The poll today shows that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The real Premier is not around, Madam Speaker. The real Premier is in Ottawa,
Mr. Tobin. Now we have the Premier of the Province, the Member for Exploits -
anyway, Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the policies. The former Premier of
the Province, the Deputy Premier today, actually stood in his place and made an
announcement that these people, the government members sitting in this House of
Assembly today, are void of ideas to get the economy going in this Province, to
revitalize Newfoundland and Labrador. They are void of any ideas. They had to
take our policies, and they have the gall and the audacity to stand here and say
that we have no policies. I will go through a few.
I would expect this Administration to continue reading our policies and
continue to implement out policies, and this Province would be far better off.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Just to give you an example of a few of the policies -
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Premier and members on the other
side of the House, I know, have a problem when they hear the truth. They have a
problem with the truth and they are accepting our policies. When they asked for
our policies and they adopted our policies and we are standing here to tell them
about our policies, they have a problem with that, Madam Speaker. I will just go
through a few and talk about the last election.
I remember during the last election when we recommended in our policy manual
- listen now, right from the book - for the record, a PC government will
immediately reduce the personal income tax rate by 5 percentage points. During
the election the Premier of the Province at the time, and all the ministers over
there and all the people that were running for them said: Where can we get the
money? We cannot do it. It cannot be implemented. Within two or three months
after the election, what did they do? Madam Speaker, they took the policy that
they said could not be done. There you go, adopting ours, saying one thing and
doing another. Just for a vote during the election. They were not upfront, Madam
Speaker. They were not upfront with the people of the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador. That is one policy.
Also, for the record, in the policy manual, Madam Speaker, it says here: A PC
government will eliminate the payroll tax. It is a regressive tax. This
government introduced the payroll tax. They said that they could not reduce the
payroll tax or get rid of the payroll tax during the last election; but, Madam
Speaker, right after the election they decided to cut the payroll tax by a
certain amount.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Are you talking about the pension bill?
MR. J. BYRNE: I will say to the Minister of Finance, she has been in this
House of Assembly for some time now, she should know by now, I would think -
although I hear her sometimes in the media, I am not quite sure she knows a lot
about her department. She should know with a finance bill there is a lot of
the various expenses, Madam Speaker. She should know this. She is trying to
interject and take up my time, but we will forgive her for today.
The personal income tax; I want to make a comment that our finance critic,
the Member for Ferryland, I do believe, when they cut the payroll tax they took
in some $75 million - is that correct? - in extra money when they cut the
payroll tax. When they cut the income tax by five points they took in an extra
$75 million?
MR. SULLIVAN: Well $65 million was taken in, but I mean -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, $65 million. Forgive me, but the intent in our policy
was to cut the income tax and we would have more revenue coming into the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. During the election, members on the
opposite said that could not happen. The Government House Leader just told her
that I was correct; again, Madam Speaker. I noticed that when the Minister of
Finance is on the other side of the House, when there are questions asked to her
we have the former Minister of Finance -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I just want to say for clarification, that I conferred with the House Leader
on the next order of business. I did not seek any concurrence to justify what
the Member for Cape St. Francis was saying. Further, Madam Speaker, for the
interest of the people of the Province listening, we are talking about a very
important issue about uniform services pension plans and I was having difficulty
finding relevancy. I was just asking, on behalf of the people of the Province,
what the correlation was between his Blue Book and a new bill for the uniform
services pension people of the Province?
MADAM SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
The relevancy of the member's comments are, in fact, real and extremely
relevant. When it comes to the discussion or any discussion or amendments on
pension plans, whether it is the Public Service Pension Plan or the uniform
pension plan, our ability to continue to fund those plans, to look at the
unfunded liability of those plans, directly depends upon the type of economic
plan that a government puts forward. What the member is directly speaking about,
Madam Speaker, is the type of economy that this government is developing that
will, in fact, enable us to continue to fund those plans or to take care of the
unfunded liability of those plans. In fact, Madam Speaker, when it comes to this
issue, and the issue of finances in this Legislature, I submit to, Your Honour,
that the Member for Cape St. Francis is not only relevant, but maybe, in fact,
more correct than the minister is giving him credit for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Again, the Minister of Finance, being on her feet is being incorrect in the
statements that she makes, as she so often is incorrect in her statements.
As we all know, Madam Speaker, when we talk about the Uniformed Services
Pension Plan, or any government pension plan, many of them are underfunded. We
know that. The revenues that the government bring in directly relate to their
policies, and that is what I am speaking on here today, and I will continue to
do so.
Now, Madam Speaker, they talked about eliminating the payroll tax. Our policy
again.
Madam Speaker, during the last election, in our manual, we talked about the
minimum wage. We said that we would increase the minimum wage. The government
members, all ministers, the Minister of Finance at the time, the Premier today,
and the former Premier, said that we could not increase the minimum wage. Where
would we get the money? What are they doing now? Adopting another one of our
policies.
Madam Speaker, we also talked about establishing a child advocate. Again, in
their policy manual, in which the critics said there was very little substance -
we have the Premier of the Province today saying that he is adopting our
policies, so we will have no policies in the next election. Now, how childish,
immature and simple-minded is that, I say to you, Madam Speaker, that they want
us to take all of our ideas and give them to them, and then stand in their
places and say that we have no policies. Really, Madam Speaker! I have been
looking forward to getting on my feet and talking about that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I know.
Madam Speaker, we have another situation which was more recently. I think it
was in September month. Again, this government talks about all they are going to
do for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Talk is cheap.
Now we have maybe thousands of people whose properties were damaged by the
recent flood in September; Gabrielle I think it was. We still have people in the
Province trying to get straightened away, putting in their claims, Madam
Speaker, and having them sent back for all kinds of minor details. The Minister
of Municipal Affairs can stand in this House of Assembly and say it is not
happening, but in reality many are only getting 70 per cent. The people who
cannot afford to go out and get the work done are only going to get 70 per cent
of the cost. That is unfair. And this Administration talks about fairness and
balance.
This Administration was on a real movement, I suppose, to ship bulk water out
of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, the Premier of the
Province, the present Premier, contradicting what they said in the last
election, that they would not ship bulk water out of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. All of the sudden that is on the agenda again, Madam
Speaker. Finally, after all kinds of opposition from this side of the House,
from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, from the Member for St. John's
South presenting petitions, they are somewhere in between again, with respect to
the shipment of bulk water. If we do something right for a change, which this
Administration has a poor record of doing, we may be able to rejuvenate the
economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hopefully, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation gets the Public
Tender Act on the table. Also, we talked about cutting taxes during the last
election. It couldn't be done. They are doing it here. We talked about making
health care a priority one. Finally, Madam Speaker, we saw the Premier today
talking about health care being priority one in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
These are only some of the policies that we have had in our manual that have
been adopted, Madam Speaker, and there are many, many more. I can go through
many, many more here, but they have the book and hopefully they will continue to
read our policy manual and adopt more and more policies. We don't mind on this
side of the House, Madam Speaker, if they adopt all of the policies in our
manual. We, on this side of the House, certainly can come up with ways to
rejuvenate rural Newfoundland, to get the economy going in rural Newfoundland.
We have a piece of legislation that may be called today with respect to the
EDGE program and Zone 19. Again they are looking to exclude Zone 19 from the
EDGE program to a certain extent, but expand on it in rural Newfoundland. Madam
Speaker, I really don't know where they are coming from half the time.
I want to make a few comments now because I may not get an opportunity to
speak to the Public Tender Act, because I am not sure that it is going to be
called. We only have a few days left.
MR. LUSH: It will be called.
MR. J. BYRNE: It will be called?
MR. LUSH: It will be called.
MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I am glad to hear that the Government House Leader is
saying that it will be called, because, again, we talk about the pensions in
this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not only the Uniformed
Services Pensions Plan that we have problems with - there is the government
services pension - and what we have seen over the past few years with this
Administration, Madam Speaker, is the waste of millions of dollars by this
Administration. Millions and millions of dollars.
Now, I can talk about $22 million but I will not. I will just talk about $11
million with respect to claims in the court system because of the abuses and the
disrespect and the contempt that this Administration has for the Public Tender
Act. We have the Trans City, which cost the people of this Province some $5
million. The Premier of this Province is a part of the Cabinet that cost the
people of this Province $5 million. We talk about health care in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier was up today talking about it, and how it
is underfunded. Well, I will say this to the Premier: When the federal
government, the counterparts in Ottawa, changed the formula to a per capita
basis rather than a needs basis, this government did nothing, said nothing. As a
matter of fact, the former Premier, Mr. Tobin, was involved with that decision,
and that is impacting upon us today in a very negative light. We heard the
Minister of Finance talk about it in the news this morning. We heard her refer
to it in the newspapers, how the CHST is negatively impacted upon in this
Province.
We talk about the equalization payments, Madam Speaker. Again, a negative
impact upon the funding for the pension programs in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador. It is all connected. The whole economy is connected. The revenues,
the expenditures, and the policies of this Administration are all connected.
MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, the Government House Leader wants to know
the interest of this Bill 40. Now, we have covered that. It is the Uniformed
Services Pensions Plan that we have been talking about here and, to my mind, the
money that we need to fund this program. Again, for the Government House Leader
to understand what we are saying here, that the revenues taken in by this
Province, the policies of this government and the expenditures of this
Administration are all connected. If we do not have the revenues based on the
policies of this Administration -
MR. LUSH: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I am rather reluctant to rise on a point of
order at this point. I did not want to interfere with the hon. gentleman, but he
has been speaking now for fifteen minutes or so, and not once has he talked
about the principle of this bill.
I want to say to hon. members that, when we are in second reading, we are to
address the principle of the bill. Of course one doesn't mind too much a
little meandering from time to time to make a point, but the hon. gentleman has
not once made reference to the principle of this bill, and I would suggest, Your
Honour, that is not following the rules of this House.
I think if we are to use the time wisely, to use our time economically, to
use our time prudently, that we have to follow the rules of this House which
suggest - not suggest, I am sorry - which demand, that on second reading we talk
about the principle of the bill, and this is what we should be listening for.
This is what the viewing public want to hear, what this particular bill is
about, Madam Speaker,
An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.
I would suggest that nobody in this House, if they did not know what this bill
is about, certainly are none the wiser by listening to the hon. member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, responding to the
point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The Official Opposition can hardly be accused, by the Government House
Leader, of not debating and using this House in this Session, using the time
before us economically. This House has been open, or is scheduled to be open for
sixteen days. Four of those are private member's days, twelve of those, in
other words, are parliamentary days where we discuss government business. To
date, this is the tenth parliamentary day where we are discussing parliamentary
business or legislation before us.
Government has put forward an ambitious agenda on major public policy issues.
In ten days, I say to the Government House Leader and to the Premier, we have
concluded first, second, committee stage, and third reading on thirteen bills.
We have concluded first and second reading -
MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: To your point of order; I am getting to your point of
order. I am dealing with your point of order, I say to the Government House
Leader.
Eleven more bills have been debated and discussed in first and second
reading, and committee stage. The point of order that the Government House
Leader raises in terms of not using the House and the time before us
economically and wisely we hardly could be criticized of doing that, of misusing
or abusing the rules before us.
The issue before us today is an issue - the bill that the member is
discussing,
an Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, is a finance
bill. There is a long-standing tradition in this House, and the Government House
Leader knows this. He knows it. When he was in Opposition, like the Deputy
Premier and others, they know it. On a finance bill it is not meandering - to
use the member's term. In terms of latitude on a finance bill, Madam Speaker,
any member in the House, whether it be a private member on the government
backbench, whether it be a minister, whether it be a critic, whether it be the
members with respect to the NDP, he knows that on this issue, on finance bills,
that any and each member has the right to discuss any issue and relate it back
to the issue before it is in this bill. That is the tradition. That is the
practice and we will not stand here and let this government, or the House
Leader, accuse us of not using or abusing, economically, the time of this House
because the record clearly shows something else.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis; and I remind the hon. member that
his time is up now.
MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, just to clue up?
MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to conclude?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am tempted to begin my comments this afternoon on this very important
amendment to the bill by following in a comment that my uncle used to make when
we worked on the farm. That is: You will go nowhere if you are going to follow a
cow around the meadow. All I have heard for the last hour is someone following a
cow around the meadow and nothing to do with the bill that we are trying to
speak about.
Madam Speaker, it is very important that this amendment go through. This
amendment is designed to take care of the workers in this Province, in
particular those in the Uniformed Services Pension Plan. It is designed to help
those who are part of the government money purchase plan to transfer their
service time over to the Uniformed Services Pension Plan. That will allow a lot
of individuals who come into government, as many people do, as part-time workers
- many individuals have become part of the civil service by joining the civil
service as a part-time employee.
We decided, as a government in 1989, that to be fair to those employees there
must be some protection for them towards their pensions as well. We must do
something to ensure that an individual who has come into a government program,
and who has worked for some five, six, or seven years, that their term of
service was worth something, because it is possible for an individual to join an
organization, such as government, and work there five, ten, or fifteen years
before they receive, what we would call, permanent status. Upon receiving that
though, it is important that the time that they had spent or the time that they
had worked for government was recognized. We did that back in 1989 by
introducing the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan. That was designed to
help those part-time employees. These are people who could very easily have
worked anywhere within the government services or indeed with the teachers as
well. The could have easily worked in schools. They could have worked there as
teachers substituting for someone on - be it maternity leave or off on sickness.
A teacher goes in, a student teacher goes in or a teacher begins their career
that way. They start on a part-time basis.
So far this afternoon I have heard so many items discussed and I have heard
so many things left out. I would be reluctant to stand here this afternoon if I
were in Opposition. I would be reluctant to stand here, wave about and quote
from a blue book that was used in the last election and that was resoundingly
rejected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador said: We don't like
what you are putting forward. We disagree with what you are putting forward. We
don't want what you are putting forward. They said to the Liberals go forward,
we agree with your plan. However, there may be some things that you may wish to
build on. As a good Liberal government we can build on those concepts and ideas.
I did not hear anything about the - I heard about things that we had left
out. I heard nothing about the $50 million new dollars that have gone into
health care; not heard that mentioned this afternoon. I have heard of other
issues. I have not heard that we have increased Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing's budget from $5 million to $7 million to take care of those
individuals who are most in need of housing; not heard that this afternoon. I
will not go into those things. I will stay with the bill. I will stay with the
amendment.
What we have to do is ensure that those individuals who were lucky enough to
gain employment within the civil service, are able now to take their pension
dollars, to take the funds that they have paid into the Government Money
Purchase Plan and allow them and afford them the opportunity to prepare for
their retirement that may come within twenty-five years of service, permitting
them to count all their service towards their pension. That, we believe as a
government, is the right thing to do. We believe that it is only right, fair and
proper for those individuals to look forward to a retirement as anyone would
after twenty-five years. If you were an employee, for example, who worked in The
Uniformed Services Pension or someone who worked with the penitentiaries, after
twenty-five years of service you would want to be able to go out and have the
maximum of pension.
So today, as opposed to moving this legislation forward, as opposed to moving
this amendment so that we can get on and allow those people to plan for their
futures, so that they know themselves that in twenty-five years they themselves
- or maybe ten years or five years left of service - will have an opportunity to
reap the benefits of the work that they have preformed for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The concept is so simple, you take the Government
Money Purchase Plan that people have paid into for x number of years, and with
this amendment we allow them to move those funds from there over to The
Uniformed Services Pension Plan to allow those individuals to take advantage.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose there are a certain amount of liberties permitted when
you are talking about a money bill. There are certain liberties permitted so
that you can wander as if you were following a cow through a field, but I think
this one is a little too important to be chewing up the time of this Legislature
and to be pulling up the time of this Legislature. We are much better off moving
forward and giving those individuals an opportunity to go into Christmas knowing
that this amendment has been accepted by this House, has been passed by this
House, and that they themselves can now plan for their retirement because they
will now be able to transfer their pensions to the pension plan of their choice.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments. I think the issue is
more important to have resolved here today than to wander for the rest of the
afternoon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): A point of order, the hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to be clear for the record. The Government House Leader knows this,
and I am about to tell the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. I
do not want the impression left here today, on this particular Bill 40, that we
are not supportive or are, in some way, shape or form, trying to delay the
passage of it.
The critic has already said, and it was communicated to the Government House
Leader before, that there will be two speakers on this. We have a role here. The
role is to debate the merits and demerits of legislation. The Government House
Leader knows already that we support this bill, and any suggestion otherwise by
any member opposite is just not true.
At the same time, when legislation is brought before the House, as the
Official Opposition, are members opposite trying to say that because they
believe it is good unto itself then we should not debate it, and that we should
not look at the merits and demerits of it? Is that what the Member for
Conception Bay East & Bell Island is saying? If he is not, fair enough. I
want to be clear, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, that we will not stand here and
let any member opposite try to paint a picture of our position on a particular
piece of legislation that is not true, particularly in view of the fact that we
have already told the government that we will support the speedy passage of this
bill.
MR. LUSH: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware that the Official Opposition is
supporting this bill, and that is not the point in question. The point in
question is to expedite the bill, not to waste time, because that is what we
were talking about. I am not suggesting that every person on the Opposition was
wasting time. I got up on a point of order when the Member for Cape St. Francis
was speaking, who, in my opinion, was not speaking to the bill. It is as simple
as that.
I suggested that, so that in the future in second reading we all, as members,
have a duty to try and follow the rules and procedures of this House, when on
second reading we are supposed to talk about the principle of the bill. That is
the only point I was making and will continue to make.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Not to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, on debate.
MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me that there is no point of order per se, but
there is a difference of opinion between the two House Leaders. I would suggest
perhaps that they might wish to confer and to come to a resolution, and perhaps
not take up the time of this Assembly.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was listening avidly to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island talking about cows. It seemed to me that he spent most of his time
chewing the cud and not talking about the substance of the bill at all.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Well, I was not being the Grinch, I suggest to the Minister
of Finance. The Grinch yesterday was Paul Martin and the Liberal government in
Ottawa, your first cousins, the ones who you folks across the way have delivered
for twelve years, a Liberal government, and yet they could not care less. They
have a tin ear when it comes to the concerns raised by the Minister of Finance
and by the Premier, and by the former Premier who obviously is not in very good
standing with the real Grinch in Ottawa, the Minister of Finance, who holds the
purse strings. If things were a little different, we would have done better
yesterday from the federal Minister of Finance and from the federal Liberal
government.
I do want to talk about the bill itself. I think it is an important piece of
legislation, and I hope that we do give it second reading today because the
principles contained in the bill are important to those who are in receipt of
pensionable service from the government. There are significant improvements to
the circumstances of employees who are covered by this legislation, and we are
talking here about the police force, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the
St. John's firefighters, which cover the St. John's regional firefighting
system, and the Penitentiary warders who are covered by the Uniformed Services
Pensions Act.
There are some provisions specific to the Uniformed Services Pensions Act,
given the nature of their service and the pensionable age of forty-five years of
age because of the conditions. There are some important changes here which will
allow for the flexibility in dealing with employees who, prior to their full
participation in the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan, were employed in the
public service and paid into the Government Money Pension Plan, which is a very
different kind of animal than the deferred benefits plan covered here. So, it is
important that these changes be made to allow the portability of pensions
service between the Government Money Purchase Plan and the Uniformed Services
Pensions Plan.
Portability of pensions, Mr. Speaker, and I know within the government
service there is an attempt to ensure that there is a portability of pensions
within the government service, and this is one more brick in that House of
trying to provide for the taking of a pension from one form of service to
another, but within the public service we seem to be working toward that. But we
do have in the private sector a high degree of lack of portability from one
pension plan to another. I think, in the overall scheme of things, the
importance of pensions is becoming more and more evident to the people in our
population.
Many people, unfortunately, do not have work-related pensions or
service-related pensions despite working many, many years for an employer. For
those who do, portability of a pension plan, if they work for one employer for a
period of four or five years, work for another employer for a period of four or
five years, if they are fortunate enough to be working in a place where there is
a pension plan in place or they are working in a collective bargaining
circumstance where their union has negotiated pension rights as part of the
benefits packet, then there really ought to be a greater degree of portability
of pensions generally in the private sector as well as in the public sector.
We have made significant improvements in the Pensions Benefits Act in 1997,
and this legislation here brings the Uniformed Services Pensions Act in line
with the provisions of the Pensions Benefits Act, 1997, which is, I think, a
very positive thing, particularly when we have benefits provided upon
termination of employment, the Pensions Benefits Act should be the guiding
principle because they are the ones that apply generally to everyone.
We also have certain real complexities in dealing with matters upon the
termination or the breakdown of the marriage for someone who has a pension. Very
tangly is the issue of survivor benefits and what happens to survivor benefits
in the event of a death of the pensioner. This act here deals with that,
bringing it in line again with the Pensions Benefits Act, to the extent that is
possible.
We hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will move speedily to pass this bill, and to
try and bring all of our pension benefits legislation to a sense of uniformity
and conformity so that there is a true portability between one pension plan and
another in the public sector. We really should start looking at the complete
portability of pensions under the Pensions Benefits Act, 1997, because that
would ensure that people who do have broken service, a service with one
employer, then another, perhaps in the public service and then in the private
sector, that by bringing one type of pension into the other a person can
maintain their years of service and maintain a proper pension for them when they
retire and take advantage of the pension benefits that they have accrued from
their work. Pensions, after all, are deferred salary, deferred benefits from
employment into retirement years, and with the increase in life expectancy and
the options for early retirement in many cases our pension benefits are going to
determine, to a very large extent, the style of life that we are going to be
able to live in our retirement.
Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 40, The Uniformed Services
Pensions Act amendment. In saying so, I move by saying that we support the
amendments and support the bill.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, she will close the
debate.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just with respect to a couple of the questions that were raised, I am glad to
hear that members on all sides of the House are supporting this very important
amendment to The Uniformed Services Pensions Act.
With respect to the numbering, as was asked in the first commentary, the
numbering is not generally changed unless the whole bill is consolidated. As you
can imagine, with the hundreds and hundreds of pieces of legislation, it would
be quite a task to rewrite all of those pieces of legislation. Generally, it is
only upon consolidation that they are renumbered. In events where they are not
consolidated, they just write repealed and move on to the next number. That is
the first question.
With respect to the second point, about clause 24.(2), and the differences
between this bill and another bill. I can say that if the member was to look at
the deadline on Bill 59, or rather Royal Assent of that, it is coming into
effect on January 1, 2002. That bill will then supercede this current bill which
we have proposed.
AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 59.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Bill 59. Subsection 24.(2) will supercede, in Bill 59,
subsection 24.(2) in Bill 40 because of the assent date. You can see that really
what we have done is just changed again, to keep in line its consolidation with
the Public Service Pension Plan. What it does is that it allows for CPP
deductions not to occur now until age sixty-five. As members opposite would
know, prior to this, members, pensioners, or deferred pensioners, or spouses of
deceased pensioners would often have CPP deductions at age sixty. Now we are
making it uniform so that those deductions will not occur now until age
sixty-five, regardless of the age of the spouse or the deferred pensioner at the
time of death. That is the amendment that we are doing.
The timing issue is important because Bill 40 was written before Bill 59. As
a result of that, we consolidated both of them. I can address this again,
because we are speaking to another bill. I just wanted to offer that as a point
of clarification in second reading.
I now move second reading, but I would be happy to answer any other questions
when we go to Committee.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act,
1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House on tomorrow. (Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 25, second reading of Bill 59.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service
Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill
59)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to introduce amendments to both the Public Service
Pensions Act and the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, which will modify the
application in reductions in pensions under the Public Service and the Uniformed
Services Pension Act for receipt of benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. I
previously referred to this when speaking to Bill 40.
These amendments were requested by both the Public Service Pensioners
Association as well as the public sector unions during their most recent round
of collective bargaining. Government has committed to respond to the needs of
the plan members under its various pension plans. Again, this is only with
respect to government's publicly-funded pension plans.
Under the proposed amendments, pensioners who retire early, or are on
disability pensions, will not have their pensions reduced for CPP until they
reach age sixty-five, regardless of when they apply for benefits under the
Canada Pension Plan. This is certainly seen as a benefit. It will be seen as a
benefit for pensioners, and we are very pleased to put forward this amendment.
Similarly, survivors of employees or pensioners who die before reaching age
sixty-five also will not have the survivor benefit reduced by CPP until such
time as the deceased plan member would have reached age sixty-five.
Concurrently, the benefits from both the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan and
the Public Service Pensions Plan are reduced when the individual starts to draw
the Canada Pension Plan. This process was really done on a voluntary basis as
pensioners made it known to the department that they were in receipt of CPP.
Obviously, there were some pensioners who did not make that information known,
and therefore it was an inconsistent approach to applying the legislation. This
amended legislation will make sure that the benefit reductions are not applied
for anyone until they reach the age of sixty-five. This will provide pensioners
who retire before age sixty-five with more income until they reach age
sixty-five. Again, we see this as a very positive move, one that is made at the
request of both the public sector pensioners, as well as the pubic sector
unions. It would be seen as a direct improvement, and I would urge members in
the House to support this amendment to both the Public Service Pensions Plan and
the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know I can get to this in Committee on another bill. I know we are on Bill
59, but I gather what the minister has indicated is that, on this particular
bill, subsection 24.(2) is going to come into effect on January 1, 2002. Let's
say both of them are proclaimed before Christmas. Bill 40, referring to
subsection 24.(2) of the act, will come into effect until the end of December
and on January 1, then, the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, the
section 24.(2)
as amended here, will follow that particular one and will render that, the same
effect as repealing it. Basically, it would supercede that. I think that is what
the minister is indicating there.
Because it has not given any particular effective date on the other bill, I
assume Bill 40 is going to take effect when it is proclaimed, or when it gets
Royal Assent. I gather Bill 40 is going to be proclaimed prior to January 1. If
not, you will have a bill that comes into effect before another bill superceding
it, when one is proclaimed after it, and that would not make sense. That would
be the cart before the horse.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: We would never put the cart before the horse.
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister said they would never put the cart before the
horse. I think that is a matter of opinion, I might add. The minister is used to
backing up on a lot of issues so I would say she probably does put the cart
before the horse.
A particular part of this bill is positive because the way it stands right
now, my understanding is that if you do not notify our pensions division, our
government, that you are drawing a pension, your Canada Pension that you are
taking advantage of at the age of sixty, you still have your full pension and
you did not get your clawback for a pension that is integrated. All pension
plans now under government are integrated, to my knowledge. All are, I think.
The MHAs plan was integrated; it was stacked before. The teachers was stacked
and now it is integrated, I think. They are all integrated right now.
If someone did not, on the honour system, indicate they were getting Canada
Pension, you found that you were getting clawback on your provincial pension
because you were getting Canada Pension at age sixty. That was not fair. The
reason that was not fair is because, if you wait until sixty-five you got a
bigger pension; if you took it early, at age sixty, you got a smaller pension.
Why should you have to be getting clawed back for five years on the amount of
money just because someone did not report they were getting it? There were
inconsistencies and I think this legislation will address those inconsistencies
now and we will see that everybody will be treated equal under this particular
act. When you are sixty-five, it will automatically happen.
What about, it just came to mind there and I am not sure - in which you would
have reached sixty-five. So, if you decided to continue working after
sixty-five, I guess, I am not sure what happens now. Would you still pay into
Canada Pension if you were still working? I would assume. After sixty-five it
would just stop then, and you are not eligible to receive Canada Pension if you
are still working, basically.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)
MR. SULLIVAN: No, but I am just thinking that it does not make sense to
say that you will receive. If somebody was still working at some other job after
that and they had not even received it, would their other pension from the
public service be reduced anyway?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not. I am talking about anybody in particular. It
certainly does not apply to my colleague, I say to the minister. It defiantly
does not apply. In fact, I do not think it applies to anybody here in this House
of Assembly, to my knowledge, but what happened if you worked beyond, you took
another job after sixty-five, went out and worked at another job and you do not
draw Canada Pension but you are getting a public service pension. I say to the
minister, would that clawback on your provincial pension then occur, if you were
out working somewhere else and not getting Canada Pension?
How can you claw back some pension because they are getting Canada Pension
when they are not getting Canada Pension, if they get it after sixty five, which
is, I think, a logical question to ask. I say to the minister, I would assume
that you would have to notify, and there are methods through the income tax
system to know who is working and who is not, to which the Province has access
because they are a recipient of this, to know if someone is working, and
therefore it would not apply, I would assume. Why should you have to pay a
clawback on your pension because of a Canada Pension you are not receiving?
Maybe the minister might be able to just check that out, in answering it, or
maybe in Committee would give her more time just to see what the situation is,
because it is nice to know that just for general information. We all do not
profess to know every single thing about how the systems operate. There are
experts in each department that can certainly provide answers on that.
Also, it goes on to mention - and this is pretty fair, too, I must say -
"Subsection 23(2) of the Act is repealed and the following
substituted...", that it would apply, "...the reduction shall be
applied to his or her pension entitlement on the first day of the month
following the month in which he or she would have reached 65 years and the
survivor benefit shall be adjusted accordingly."
If someone, for example, passed away at the age of fifty-five or fifty-two
and at the age of sixty-five, if they would have reached that, if they passed
away at the age of fifty-two, in thirteen years' time that adjustment would
only kick in for the survivor or the recipient of that . That is logical there.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: If the minister feels what I am saying is not accurate, I
certainly do not mind -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I do have an hour but I do not mind. I do not intend to use
it, to be honest with you, and I certainly do not mind giving leave in my time
if someone has any statement to the contrary of what I am saying, that it may
not be accurate. I would only be delighted to hear the truer version, if my
interruption is not correct. I think the minister made reference to that too.
In the third clause of the bill - the last two clauses deal with the
Uniformed Services Pensions Act; t