Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 15 May 2003 (44th General Assembly, 5th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 23)
2003-05-15
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 15, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 23
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our routine proceedings the Chair would like to take this
opportunity to welcome to the gallery today eleven students from Holy Heart of
Mary School who are enrolled in Canadian Issues. They are from the District of
St. John's East, accompanied by teachers: Kathy Henderson and Jackie
Fewer-Bennett.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery today: Mayor
Gerry Dean, Deputy Mayor Scott Sceviour, and Town Manager Mr. Ed Evans from the
Town of Botwood in the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to invite all citizens of the
Province to come to Bay Roberts this August to take
part in the biggest classic
rock festival east of Montreal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on August 2, the Eighth Annual Bay Roberts
Klondyke Festival concert takes place, and this year's stellar lineup will
provide solid entertainment for one and all.
The headliner will be Lou Gramm, best known as the lead singer of Foreigner,
who's number one hit on the U.S. charts, I Want To Know What Love Is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, Gramm also has a successful solo career.
Also, Mr. Speaker, classic rock fans can hear the sounds of Canadian rock
icons, Stampeders, Honeymoon Suite, Glass Tiger, Streetheart, Loverboy and also
the catchy traditional sounds of our very own, The Fables.
Mr. Speaker, this year's Klondyke Festival concert promises to be a special
event that will be long remembered by music fans throughout the Province. I
congratulate the organizers and sponsors and I want to take this opportunity to
invite everyone in the Province to come experience Bay Roberts this summer at
this year's Klondyke Festival.
I say, Mr. Speaker, don't stay where you're at, come where we're to.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to pay tribute to
a former member of this Assembly, Mr. Albert E. Furey of Harbour Main, who
passed away on April 23, 2003 at the grand age of ninety-two years of age.
Mr. Furey was first selected to the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature in
the general election of August 20, 1959 and served one term as a Progressive
Conservative representing the District of Harbour Main. Interesting to note, Mr.
Speaker, that in that election it was Term 29 of the Terms of Union that was the
main issue in that election.
He was a successful business leader and community leader in the Harbour Main
area. As a politician he was noted for his oratory skills and fiery speeches, as
well as his stands on the issues of the day and his strong voice for the people
of his district.
Mr. Furey's passing certainly reminds us of another time in politics.
Harbour Main District was a dual riding at that time and Mr. Furey shared the
responsibility of the district with a Liberal colleague, Mr. P.J. Lewis. As
well, Mr. Furey was a third generation to represent the Harbour Main District,
following his grandfather Charles Furey and his father Charles. J. Furey who
both represented the district in Responsible Government days.
Following politics, Mr. Furey continued in his business interests and was
very active in his community right up until his passing a few weeks ago. He
leaves to mourn his son Alberta, daughter-in-law Geraldine, five grandchildren,
his sister Gert Maloney of Harbour Main, and a large circle of relatives and
friends.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I join with all members of this House in
extending condolensces to the Furey family on the passing of Mr. Albert E. Furey,
former Member of the House of Assembly for Harbour Main.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate two
outstanding community leaders in my District of Trinity North. Both ladies were
recently presented with the Queen's Golden Jubilee award and may I say, they
are both quite deservingly recipents of that award.
Roslyn Cooper of Port Rexton was one of the first female fire chiefs for this
Province and has been a volunteer with the Port Rexton Fire Brigade for more
than nine years. Roslyn is also very dedicated to the youth of the area and has
shown in her many years as leader of the Church Lads Brigade where she currently
holds the rank of Lieutenant. Roslyn has always been actively involved in
numerous community organizations as well as the entire surrounding area, Port
Rexton and Trinity region of Trinity North. She is truly the type of individual
everyone can count on and rely on when help or leadership is needed in the
community.
The community of Southport too, Mr. Speaker, is also very honoured to have
Charlene Lambert as one of its residents. Charlene has provided hundreds of
hours of community volunteer work and provides strong leadership to the youth of
the area. She has been the leader of the Sea Cadet Corp for more than nineteen
years. Charlene is also very actively involved in many other community
organizations, and the people of that region of the Province can always count on
Charlene when there is a volunteer effort needed and a great job to be done.
I ask all members of this House today to join me, Mr. Speaker, in
congratulating two great ladies in my district who have made a major
contribution to improving the quality of life of the people in the communities
in which they serve, and this award, the Queen's Golden Jubilee award, has
been presented to them in a very deserving fashion.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
MR. MERCER: By leave, to give a private member's statement?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the nation is being informed by the ALS Society of Canada, I would like to
inform members of this hon. House that June is ALS Awareness Month.
Although not a common disease, three residents of my home community of
Pasadena, all well known to me, have been afflicted by ALS within the past
several years.
ALS is more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's Disease, as it was this disease
that took the life of the once-great baseball player, Lou Gehrig, on June 2,
1941. This neuromuscular disease progresses rapidly and is usually fatal within
three to five years of diagnosis.
ALS has been known to doctors since 1874, but as yet there is no known cause
or cure. Still, our researchers work tirelessly towards finding that cure, and
clinics and teams reach out to help victims and families through the
ever-changing maze of challenges and volunteers to help members and their
families who are suffering from ALS.
On June 14, you are invited to wear the blue cornflower, flowers which have
been placed on each member's desk to show your support for those with ALS. The
blue cornflower is the international flower of hope for ALS sufferers. This
flower was chosen, as it is hardy despite its fragile appearance. The same can
be said of persons living with this disease, as they show courage and great
strength of character in order to cope with the devastating changes that occur
to the muscles in their body.
They need your support. We need hope!
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, with Your Honour's indulgence, and the
concurrence of the House, I would also like to make a member's statement.
MR. E. BYRNE: Go ahead.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this House today to pay tribute to an
amazing individual, Gambo resident Baxter Goulding. As an important aside, I
might say Baxter is a lifelong friend of both the hon. Member for Labrador West
and myself.
What started as a devastating event in his life, has culminated in his
publishing a book entitled, Trapped In My Own Body . This book not only
provides hope for people afflicted with the rare illness, Guillain-Barre
Syndrome, it is also an inspiration for anyone faced with a life-threatening,
life-changing health problem.
Guillain-Barre Syndrome is a rare disease that affects the nervous system,
that could lead to a total body paralysis, as was the case with Mr. Goulding.
Baxter's book provides insight into what it means to be totally paralyzed,
and outlines his valiant fight for life following his diagnosis.
Up to 1991, this brave Newfoundlander and Labradorian led an active, healthy
life. In early July of that year, he and his wife, Triffie, set out on a
vacation for St. John's, which turned into a nightmare that resulted in total
paralysis and a hospital stay of twenty-four months.
Mr. Goulding's book reveals what goes on behind the scene of an
ill-stricken human being and how he and his family and friends were able to cope
with circumstances that led to a long fight back to an improved life.
Despite the ordeal, Mr. Goulding has fought for a better quality of life and
he shared his difficulty by writing a book that provides inspiration to anyone
faced with difficult challenges.
Mr. Speaker, we all in this House wish Baxter well as he continues his life's
journey and commend, applaud and congratulate him for being an inspiration to
all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is now three weeks since Minister Thibault and Minister Byrne
announced their decisions regarding the Northern and Gulf cod fisheries. There
has been very little success thus far in resolving many of the outstanding
issues that arose that day.
Mr. Speaker, it appears from recent comments by this Province's MPs in
Ottawa that they have taken the lead in discussions with federal ministers on
adjustment initiatives like early retirement, licence retirement, and EI
extensions for those affected by the closure of our cod fisheries and the
extensive ice conditions in the Gulf in particular.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us: Is this government involved in
discussions that took place in Ottawa yesterday and are continuing today? If so,
what specifically is this government recommending to the federal minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This government has been very engaged at every opportunity with the federal
government in lobbying to have this fishery reopen, especially in the Gulf
region, Mr. Speaker, because we take the advice of the fishing industry; we take
the advice of our own science in this Province which tells us we can have a
sustainable, limited fishery for the people of our Province.
That has been our position. We have maintained that with the federal
government, and we agree there are some measures that have to be taken in the
interim. We have been approaching them on those measures. When there is a
program to talk about, we will be at the table.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &
White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is now three weeks since Minister
Thibault made his announcement. More importantly, it is five weeks since most
fishery workers on the Northwest Coast, in particular, on the Southwest Coast
and Southern Labrador, and certainly throughout the Province - it is five weeks
now since their EI benefits ran out. As a result of that, it is causing a great
deal of financial and emotional stress to the people who are affected. As I said
a couple of days ago, we have, in a community of 180 people, Green Island Brook,
sixty-five people leaving in the next two weeks, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Government has recently announced $1.8 million in
funding to assist fishery workers in their province while they await
compensation from Ottawa. Does this government have any plans to provide
short-term emergency assistance to the fishery workers who have been without an
income for five weeks now?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have consistently made representation to the
federal government on ice compensation, on EI extensions, for people who are
affected by the recent decision around cod closures, by people who are affected
by the ice conditions that are on the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador today,
by people who are affected by quota reductions and reduced bycatch in some
fisheries.
We understand the dilemma that these people are in, and we also understand
that there is a need for short-term measures. There is a need to bridge the gap
in terms of their current situation until such a time we can get these people
back on the water, back in the fishing boats, and get an active fishery going in
this Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &
White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Quebec provincial government has
announced $1.8 million in short term adjustment measures for the people affected
in their province. They have also called upon Ottawa to come across with $200
million in the form of compensation for the people directly and to help in
economic development initiatives.
I ask the minister again, Mr. Speaker, as we have asked her over the past
number of days: What specifically have they put forward to the federal
government in the way of a proposal? What are they asking for? How much money
are they asking for, and what would they like to see that money spent on, Mr.
Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many days I have to stand in
this House, in this place, and reiterate that our position is, and the position
of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, to have a fishery. That is
the perspective that we have continued to put forward to the Government of
Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have done analysis. We know what the impact of
this decision is on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we understand
it fully.
I listened to the comments of a gentleman in Green Island Cove, I listened to
the comments of the people in my own district, Mr. Speaker. We know what the
implications are, and we know what the impacts are. We have crunched the
numbers, we have looked at what may be needed in terms of some form of
compensation, but we will not relent on our position to have this fishery
reopened. When the federal government is prepared to come to the table and talk
about programs and measures we will be prepared to do the same.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &
White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is wondering how many days she
is going to have to stand and listen to this question, she is going to have to
stand and listen to the question until I get an answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: I didn't ask if she understood the situation that the
fishery workers are confronted with. I asked what are they proposing to the
federal government and how much money have they asked for. That is the question
that I asked, Mr. Speaker, but I will shift gears, because I am not going to get
an answer to that.
Mr. Speaker, there are opportunities that are non-monetary, that don't
require a monetary commitment from the federal government, that would help our
industry. In the processing sector of our industry, for example, the shrimp
fishery in particular, our industry can't access industrial shrimp from the
offshore fleet because of the 20 per cent European Union tariff on exports to
the European Union. In addition, Mr. Speaker - something that I have not heard
this government speak about -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, and I ask him to get to his question.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The high liner plant at Arnold's Cove, for example, is hampered by a seven
and a half per cent tariff on ground fish products going into the European
Union.
Mr. Speaker, in view of what we were confronted with today in our industry,
and in view of the positive impact the reduction on these tariffs would have on
our industry -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member now should get to his question.
MR. TAYLOR: I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, what
representation has she made recently? In the last two-and-a-half months since
she has been minister, what representation has she made to her federal
counterparts on shrimp tariffs and groundfish tariffs into the EU and,
specifically, what representation has she made to the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We recognize that the tariffs into the European Union poses a problem for a
number of processors in our Province in order to put product into the
international market. We have continued to make representation to our federal
counterparts and at every other opportunity that we could to be able to present
our position on that particular issue. I know the hon. member knows our position
very clearly.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about his comments regarding shrimp. We have made
our position quite clear to the federal government. We want to see a change in
historical share agreements between inshore and offshore shrimp. We have made
our representation to the federal minister. We expect to have shrimp delivered
for the areas that are affected by cod closures and reduced quotas in areas of
the Province. Shrimp is a resource that is available to us. It should be in the
hands of the harvesters in our own Province.
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 to the Premier.
The Premier and his government have continuously referenced the 1992
Strategic Economic Plan as the one that lays out the vision and plans of this
government. I want to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: How is the Premier going to
defend an economic policy that has seen personal disposable income drop from
over 80 per cent of GDP in 1990 to 59 per cent of GDP forecast in this year's
budget?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In quite a reversal of roles today, while the Opposition Finance critic may
want to talk about GDP, and while that is very encouraging and the numbers are
great for Newfoundland and Labrador, leading the country, leading the nation -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we will gladly defend our economic policies
any day of the week on the one thing that really counts, which is jobs for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to provide for themselves and their families so
they can be better contributors in their communities. The fact of the matter is
this: That is the one indicator that counts in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.
Speaker. Last year we set a record because of our plan and policies in
Newfoundland and Labrador for jobs in the Province. A record, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: There are more people working than ever in the history of
the Province and it is continuing into this year, Mr. Speaker. For the last
month for which we have full information, for the last month in 2003 for which
we have full information in April month, again, more people worked in April of
2003 in Newfoundland and Labrador than in any other April in the history of the
Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: That is a record we will defend anytime, anywhere.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier must not have understood my question or intentionally avoided it.
I asked about personal disposable income, was the question, Mr. Speaker. As he
is smiling he is very deliberate in avoiding that because he cannot face up to
the real economic consequences that we are facing in money as disposable income
in our Province today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, total budgetary revenues from both
federal-provincial sources six years ago were 36 per cent of our Gross Domestic
Product. Last year they were only 24 per cent of our GDP. I want to ask the
Premier, how is he going to the defend an economic policy that has seen such a
drastic decline in our revenues as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, while the Finance critic for the Opposition might again want to talk
about GDP, which is a great indicator, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is in
Newfoundland and Labrador - when he talks about the circumstance for
individuals. Individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador, in their own personal
lives - and here is a statistic, Mr. Speaker, that he does not want to use.
Individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador carry less debt per capita themselves
that they are personally responsible for, at a bank for themselves, than
anywhere else in the country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador have less direct
personal responsibility for debt than anywhere else in the country, Mr. Speaker.
As a result, they happen to need - in order to have the best quality of life in
the country - less actual disposable income because a dollar goes a lot further
in Newfoundland and Labrador, when you do not have a mortgage, when you do not
have five or six bank loans like people in Toronto, like our own relatives
living in places like Toronto and Calgary and Edmonton who can hardly, even with
their jobs, get enough money to pay their rent or pay for a mortgage. That is
why the statistics that he wants to use are practically irrelevant in the real
lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: This is a great Province in which to live, and it is
getting greater by the day because of the great leadership provided by the
Liberal government, Mr. Speaker.
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.
You know, it is funny how the Premier tries to twist statistics. Yesterday in
this House -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday in this House I asked the Premier why has the median family income
in this Province declined by the highest in the country, 3.7 per cent over the
last ten years, by far the highest in this country. Newfoundland and Labrador
families are getting poor, relative to the rest of this country, in stats that
are provided by Stats Canada.
I want to ask the Premier, the government's own publication: From the
Ground Up, states that child poverty in this Province has increased from 21 per
cent in 1991, to 26 per cent in 2000 -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: - while the rest of the country has declined in child
poverty. I want to ask the Premier: How can you defend an economic policy that,
over the past ten years of its existence, has produced a 25 per cent increase in
child poverty 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.
The answer is clear. The information that we produce is for people to have a
meaningful discussion about where we go from here. The circumstance did describe
what has happened in the last decade. The other part of it, Mr. Speaker, is
this, remember what happened in the last decade. The beginning of the decade was
the closure of the fishery, which would be the same as shutting down the auto
industry for all of Ontario, which would have devastated the whole economy of
the country, almost devastated the economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador,
but we rose to the challenge and we have been building back.
Mr. Speaker, the stats will show this, while that is the circumstance that we
did report over the last ten years, in the past two year, in particular, it has
been going exactly in the opposite direction and will continue to go in exactly
the opposite direction into the next several years because we have already put
mitigating strategies in place. We have recognized a circumstance that was not
acceptable. We are doing something about it. When the next report comes out, you
will see a market change and improvement because that is what is happening in
the whole Province on a whole range of fronts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question today -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like for the members on the opposite
side to at least give the minister the courtesy to hear the question.
Mr. Speaker, this year marks the end of the funding for the Roads for Rail
Agreement between the province and the federal government. Many of the trunk
roads are in a deplorable condition and most of the gravel roads are down to the
bedrock. We see the physical condition of the roads deteriorating even further
during spring in the form of bumps, hallows and very large potholes. The
Trans-Canada Highway is in desperate conditions in many locations along its
route.
Mr. Speaker, what plan does the minister have to address this very serious
issue all over Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted to say today that we do have a plan in place. We are spending
$23 million on our roads in Newfoundland and Labrador this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: I am more delighted to stand here and know full well that
based on the requests I have received from my colleagues in the Opposition, that
I know now their plan is to spend a minimum, should they ever form a government,
of at least $50 million a year. I applaud them for that because at least I now
know one of their policies, I cannot find out anything else.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister knows full well that we need six times $50 million to address
the immediate concerns of them.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That $300 million, as a matter of fact, is the minister's own words. The
provincial government has failed to negotiate a federal roads agreement, the
first time in many years. Mr. O'Brien, the federal MP, has been critical of
the Province's feeble attempt at negotiating a deal with Ottawa.
Will the minister confirm that $5 million to $10 million is immediately
required to address the very serious condition of a number of bridges and
overpasses on the Trans-Canada Highway and that the concrete in these structures
have been drastically deteriorating since the 1980s? Has the professionals
within his department advised government that immediate attention is required to
address this very serious condition?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to know that, I only thought they
were spending $50 million but the critic has confirmed today they are willing to
go as high as $300 million a year, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
thank you for that.
Let me again tell you what we are doing in terms of overpasses. There are
three overpasses planned for this year, being built, underway as we speak. Three
more on hold waiting on the federal government to sign off on them. Forty-two
kilometres of road in the Goobies area waiting to be done, waiting for the
federal government to sign off on them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: While we wait for that, we carry on with the $23 million that
we are spending in the Province, including $550,000 in the hon. member's
district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St.
Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, the $550,000 in my district has been long overdue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: The Province is doing temporary repairs on these bridges.
We just recently saw a gaping hole repaired on the bridge at Birchy Narrows and
more problems came to light yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why his department has neglected to do
proper maintenance and repairs over the past number of years on these bridges
which have caused this very serious safety situation to develop? Could the
hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on an ad campaign to promote the Premier
been better spent on roads and bridges?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, is the Department of Works, Services and
Transportation going to call tenders for temporary repairs on this bridge or are
they going to replace this bridge?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring some of the numbers into an
association so that people will understand it.
If we took the entire amount of money on the ad campaign that you are talking
about, one kilometre of road somewhere in Newfoundland would be done. Mr.
Speaker, let me tell you, in order to get out the information to the people of
the Province that we did with that ad campaign, I would gladly give up the one
kilometre of road.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, let me say, is $23 million enough? No. I agree it
is not enough. However, Mr. Speaker, I will not, nor will this government, take
the money back from the Department of Health, from the Department of Education,
in order to build the roads. We cut the cloth to fit the Budget we have and
thank God we are not willing to put it all into roads. We do believe Health
needs money, we do believe Education needs money, as well as the other
departments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier. In February of this year, the Consumer
Advocate wrote the government and all members of the House asking for changes to
the Public Utilities Board legislation that would change the rules so that the
Public Utilities Board could do a better job of protecting consumers and control
the excess monies being collected by Newfoundland Power.
Mr. Speaker, why has this government not, in this session of the Legislature,
put into place legislation to do just that at the request of the Consumer
Advocate who, we are told by the media at least, is a good friend of the
Premier? Why did they not accept his advise, his very good advise, to protect
the consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador by changing those rules?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I must say I am glad to have my continuing association with the
Consumer Advocate who is from my home town of Grand Falls-Windsor. He is the
same age as I am, we grew up together, and I am glad to still have him as a
friend after all these years. Sometimes you grow apart. Maybe we have grown even
closer together over a period of time.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this, in seriousness to the question, it is an
issue that the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board have been reviewing. We do understand that the
current law does provide for any excess earnings to be held and be available to
the Public Utilities Board to set against any future rate increase request. The
notion of the Consumer Advocate is that rather than have that happen the money
should be rebated directly to the consumer. There is currently a review being
done that suggests that while it is in the range of a million dollars today,
when it goes back to the consumer that the administration costs would see
consumers, with that amount, maybe only get a few pennies rebated. As a matter
of policy, we are certainly reviewing it, to bring it forward and change the
legislation into the future. It would not have any impact on the current thing.
It cannot be done, and we would not recommend, and I am sure that the hon.
member would not recommend, retroactive legislation, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: That is not the way we normally operate, but it is a good
policy initiative for the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier also promised to bring in legislation that would control and
change the law with respect to donations to political parties so that the
domination of politics by big business interests in this Province would be
changed, and bring in a law like the Province of Manitoba has done - the NDP
Government there - to prohibit corporate and union donations.
Why has the Premier not done that, Mr. Speaker, in time for the next
election, as he has promised to do so?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is no election called that I am aware of. There certainly is lots of
time left for this Legislature to continue on and do such things between now and
an election, unless it gets called very soon, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier full well knows that the likelihood is that this House will not
sit beyond today, and the Premier has had ample opportunity since the House
opened to bring this legislation before this House and he has not done so. Why
not, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Leader of
the New Democratic Party agrees with the general thrust of some particular
expenditure limits and contribution limits with respect to electioneering.
However, I would suggest that he also feels, as most people in Newfoundland and
Labrador do, that the last election that was held in Newfoundland and Labrador,
under the current law, was held and run properly and appropriately and fairly.
The current law is that if anybody provides any funding in excessive of $100
to a candidate or a party it has to be full disclosed to the people of the
Province. People see that as being fair. We are very interested in looking at
the kind of legislation that is in Manitoba, that is now being debated before
the Parliament of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and it is a serious enough issue that we
always, while we have an intent to do things, we always do take the time to make
sure we are doing it right and if it is needed before the next election, unless
the election is very soon, Mr. Speaker, there is lots of time for this
Legislature to come back and deal with it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During the Budget Speech, we heard that this government was not going to make
any further announcements on dialysis services until the provincial report is
out. Will the minister stand today, Mr. Speaker, and acknowledge that report has
been in his hands for some time now? Will he further confirm that the report
recommends services in Gander and Conception Bay North? Is he waiting until an
election is called before he makes the announcement?
I ask him to stand today and tell us about when he is planning to implement
those recommendations, and tell the people of Gander and Conception Bay North
and the Burin Peninsula and St. Anthony when they are going to get the dialysis
services that they deserve and that the report recommends.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member raises a very important question and one that is of interest
to a lot of people in this Province. First of all, just to speak directly to the
question: In fact, the report has only been received within the last couple of
days to a point where the officials of my department are analyzing, so I do not
know where the hon. member is coming from, that, in fact, I had been in receipt
of it for some time. I would suggest to him that you might want to go back and
check with your sources, because obviously somebody is misleading you.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is, the report has been done. The interesting thing,
Mr. Speaker, if you look at it, you hear hon. members every day, in talking
about of the spending practices of this government, the fact that we do not show
prudence and we do not deal with things properly. This is a clear example. This
is a service that the people of this Province value. We are getting lobbied from
a number of areas. The hon. member mentioned a couple. The members from the
Burin Peninsula - and I have met with people down there - they have been
lobbying for a service there as well. What we have done, as a government, to
make sure -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: - the decisions that are made are being made in the best
interests of the people of this Province, is to have an independent committee
examine the issues and make recommendations to government. Government now has
that. They are studying it and we will be announcing it within the next number
of days.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I assume from the minister's comment, then, he is going to respond in a
couple of days; so, will you be making the announcement, Mr. Speaker? Will the
minister be making the announcement of the locations of the new dialysis
services within the next couple of days, and can he tell the people of Gander
and in Conception Bay North, the Burin Peninsula, that is what, in fact, is
going to happen?
The second thing, Mr. Speaker, would the minister comment and provide some
comment about the recommendation to establish a centre or a kidney foundation
similar to the cancer foundation of the Province? Is that going to be one of the
strategies that you will be announcing, Mr. Minister?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the hon. member opposite, and
to all of the members of this House and to the people of the Province, that, in
fact, in keeping with the policies of this government, any reports that have
been received by this government, once we have had the time to analyze them and
deal with them, which I think the people of the Province would want me, as
minister, and my officials who deal with it, once it is done we will certainly
make that information available to all the people of the Province, which is the
practice of this government to do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to table the 2002 Annual Report of Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro group of companies.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to, with permission of the House,
as Chair of Public Accounts and in discussion, too, with the Vice-Chair of
Public Accounts, the Member for Lake Melville, that in the next couple of weeks
the Public Accounts Committee should be finalized with recommendations - when
that is ready and passed to the Speaker of the House, it could be circulated to
members of the House and to the general public, in case we may not be sitting in
two or three weeks time here in the House. So, with permission of the House, if
that could be done. It is a committee and report of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Is that agreed?
AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.
MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994." (Bill 15)
MR. COLLINS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Sometime ago, back in early April, I laid a question on the Order Paper
asking that a list of expenditures from the Labrador Transportation Initiative
Fund be answered. I am wondering if the Government House Leader or the Minister
responsible for Labrador Affairs could inform me as to when we can expect that
question to be answered.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that is an appropriate point of
order. The hon. member has inquired about a question on the Order Paper. I am
sure in the appropriate time the question will be answered.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present another petition to this House on behalf of the
residents of my district, in this particular case, Little Bay Islands.
First of all, the petition of the undersigned residents of Little Bay
Islands:
WHEREAS the residents of Mack's Island do not have access to town water;
and
WHEREAS there is a great need for a safe, adequate, supply of water.
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to provide this desperately needed service.
Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to present these petitions on the last day
that the House is now going to be in session, that this particular community -
by the way, Mr. Speaker, Little Bay Islands is a good news story in my district.
Just a couple of years ago - they have a new operator now at the plant there.
The town is certainly looking forward to a real good summer this summer, but at
the same time, like so many other small communities throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador, they petition the government. They take the time to present these
petitions because they are still looking for the basic infrastructure needs
throughout their community.
I will be talking to the minister directly on this particular petition which
I have just received. Mr. Speaker, it is a serious concern, this particular
situation - and I guess it is something we should not be talking about in this
Province anymore. But, the bottom line is this, their water supply still runs
through a small hose that supplies water to so many families on Little Bay
Islands. They are looking back and saying to the Province: We need the basic
infrastructure of a decent, clean water supply. I think they have every right to
ask for that. They have always made the argument, Mr. Speaker, the people in
this community, that they are contributing to the economy of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Although they are on an island, isolated, a small population, but they
still believe they deserve the basic infrastructure needs, such as safe drinking
water. Of course, they have also raised it many times in this House, the road
conditions. In this particular instance, it is their water supply.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker - and I will try to get some costs for the
minister and talk to him again further, and his officials on it, but this can be
rectified. These people should not be going without water throughout the long
winter months because there is a small hose supplying that part of the Island
with water supply. This community does contribute to the economy. It is looking
forward to a good summer with the new plant opening and full production in that
area. They believe this is only something fair that they are asking for. It is a
basic necessity. I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that the minister and his department
will give some consideration to supporting this petition.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this House today to bring forth a petition from the residents of
the community of Colliers. The mayor of that particular community just passed
along to me additional names of a petition that I presented a little earlier on
in this session. Of course, the mayor joins us today in the gallery to see it
being presented. Certainly, we welcome him here for that.
Mr. Speaker, it is the Harbour Drive in particular in the Colliers community
that I draw attention to. The petition reads:
WHEREAS the roads in the community of Colliers, especially Harbour Drive,
have deteriorated to a point that safety of motorists and pedestrians are being
compromised; and
WHEREAS access to residences, businesses, churches, postal facilities,
schools and recreation areas have been seriously affected; and
WHEREAS little, if any, maintenance and repairs are carried out on an annual
basis;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to make a commitment to include the upgrading of this road system in its annual
capital disbursement for the upcoming fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, again, as I have pointed out, I have brought forth to this House
a petition on behalf of the community of Colliers on a previous day, that we had
in excess of over 300 names then, I am sure another 300 or 400 now. We are close
to just about every resident in that community asking this government to take a
look at the seriousness of this situation.
The community itself is a very vibrant community made up of individuals who
are very concerned about making sure that the community stays viable. One of the
ways for a viable community, of course, Mr. Speaker, is to have a good road
system. We have seniors in this community who are shut in because they cannot
navigate these roads, not only in their vehicles, but certainly by walking as
well.
This is not a new request, Mr. Speaker, that this council, this mayor, and
other councils as well have put this forth to government. They are asking that
it be put up to a condition where, perhaps then, they would take over that
particular stretch of road because it is very, very important to the life of the
community. It winds down through the community. It bounds on the sea and if
repairs are not carried out, I would add too, Mr. Speaker, that the
deterioration is going to continue at a rapid pace.
Again, we hope, and I did not hear encouraging news from the minister today
as he indicated the amount of money of $23 million was available -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, just to clue up?
MR. LUSH: Twenty-five seconds.
MR. HEDDERSON: Twenty-five seconds, thank you to the Government House
Leader.
In cluing up, Mr. Speaker, we know that the dollars certainly do not appear
to be there, but again, the mayor of this particular community would even like
the one kilometre that the minister referred to as being paid for by
advertising. Anything, even if it were to be in stages, the community of
Colliers would certainly be very open to any sort of a commitment that this
government can make to make sure, in the very near future, even in the distant
future, that something is done with the deplorable conditions of this road in
the community of Colliers.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I present a petition on behalf of fifty-two LPNs. I checked with the Clerk of
the House, the petition is in order. I will read the prayer of the petition:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth;
WHEREAS St. Lawrence College is a well recognized public college in Ontario
offering accredited nursing programs throughout Canada; and
WHEREAS the Fast-Track registered nursing program is of a very high standard
and is recognized throughout Canada; and
WHEREAS St. Lawrence College is prepared to offer this nursing program, which
does not contravene the Act of the Association of Registered Nurses of
Newfoundland and Labrador, on a one-time basis only; and
WHEREAS fifty-two or more Licensed Practical Nurses will be given a one-time
opportunity to become Registered Nurses; and
WHEREAS those Licensed Practical Nurses are presently only working casual
part-time; and
WHEREAS the Fast-Track nursing program will enable them to obtain full time
employment in various health care facilities throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador; and
WHEREAS the Executive Director has exceeded the authority of the ARNNL in
opposing the delivery of this Fast-Track RN program;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to take immediate steps to work with the Executive Director of the
ARNNL to ensure that these Licensed Practical Nurses will be granted this
one-time opportunity to become Registered Nurses.
Mr. Speaker, this is fifty-two LPNs who are trying to do the Fast-Track
program. Last night on a program on CBC , it was about the shortage of
nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador. I understand that there is a discrepancy
about the level of nursing if this program is approved in Newfoundland and
Labrador. These LPNs, some of them I know personally, are dedicated health care
professionals in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are people who live in
communities where nurses are in shortage. They are people who are dedicated to
their communities, to the health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. Most of
them, that I know, have their roots and will be staying in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
If there is anyway possible through the association - I urge the House of
Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, if there is anyway
to help with this, or some other way, or some other mechanism, some way to help
these dedicated health care people become nurses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of this
Province who suffer from MS. They are calling upon this government to expand the
prescription drug program so that the drugs they require to treat their illness
and offer them a better quality of life will be covered by this government and
by the plan.
I will read the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new MS drug therapies;
and
WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides
medication coverage for seniors under the senior citizens' drug plan and
people on income support; and
WHEREAS these drugs can cost between $1,800 and $3,600 a month; and
WHEREAS all citizens in every other Canadian province can receive assistance
with the high cost drugs on a co-payment or sliding scale program not limited to
social assistance income levels; and
WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people
with MS.
We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government
to implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for these drugs so that
people who do not qualify for assistance under the existing programs can get
financial assistance with the high cost drugs, as is the case in every other
Canadian province.
Mr. Speaker, I have presented this petition in this House many, many times
over the past three to four years. I am sad to say that this government has not
yet reached out to help the people in this Province who are hard-working people,
who go to work each day, and are afflicted by a disease that they did not bring
on themselves, that is not one they asked for, or abused themselves and
received.
Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous that people in this Province today have to make
a choice between feeling better themselves, taking a drug that helps them, helps
their quality of life with this disease, or providing things for their families
and other areas of their lives.
I think it is ridiculous also, Mr. Speaker, that government has taken the
attitude, taken the position, that they cannot afford to do this. Mr. Speaker, I
think they should look at it in a different way. They cannot afford not to.
Because without these drugs that alleviate a lot of the pain and suffering to
patients of MS - if they take these drugs their quality of life improves to the
degree that they are able to function better in society and have a better
quality of life themselves. Without these drugs, Mr. Speaker, many of these
people will be institutionalized at some point in their life or require home
care that will cost this government much more money than upfront money right now
that will relieve them of the suffering that they are enduring.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is the only province in this country that does
not offer their citizens any form of assistance under this plan. This government
now, Mr. Speaker, requires -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has elapsed.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I say again it is a terrible situation when a person has to
spend any RRSPs they may have saved, any money that they put away for their
children's education, reduced themselves to income support levels, before this
government will help out. Then they will step in, Mr. Speaker, and if they can
step in and help after a person has ruined themself and their families
financially, they can do it before that happens, and I urge them to do so.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure today to present a petition to the House of Assembly from
employees of the Penitentiary and their spouses and their children.
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has declared many public
sector workplaces in the Province to be smoke-free workplaces, but Her Majesty's
Penitentiary remains a smoking workplace and her employees and inmates alike are
exposed to second-hand smoke on a continual basis, to the detriment of their
health;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to declare Her Majesty's Penitentiary to be a smoke-free workplace and forbid
smoking within the premises.
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, we know from scientists worldwide that they have determined that
the smoke that comes off the tip of a lit cigarette is much more poisonous than
that which passes through a filter.
Governments in the Western World are increasingly recognizing that
environmental tobacco smoke is a public health hazard. In fact, this government
recognized that same fact when it passed a Smoke-Free Environment Act in 1993 in
this House. At that time, this government recognized the medical dangers that
their employees were being exposed to, so they legislated that the workplace
should be smoke-free.
Mr. Speaker, some government employees are being discriminated against;
namely, the employees of the Penitentiary who have asked me to bring this
petition here today.
Some facts about environmental tobacco smoke: Over 300 non-smoking Canadians
and over eighty non-smoking Newfoundlanders die each year from lung cancer
caused by tobacco smoke. In addition to lung cancer, other cancers associated
are: cancer of the sinuses, brain, breast, uterine, cervix, thyroid, as well as
leukemia.
During an eight-hour shift, workers inhale an amount of second-hand smoke
that is equivalent to actively smoking twenty-five cigarettes. Tobacco use in
the workplace causes more deaths, disease and disability for employees than any
other hazard in their working environment. People exposed to second-hand smoke
are 82 per cent more likely to suffer a stroke than people who are not exposed -
a new study reveals that - and the real dangers of so-called passive smoking are
actually much worst than originally thought.
It is not only the employees at the Penitentiary, but one of the inmates at
the Penitentiary has also made representation that the Penitentiary be made
smoke-free.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has elapsed.
MS S. OSBORNE: By leave to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. One of the employees at the
Penitentiary said that when he comes home from work every day his clothes and
his hair and everything reek of cigarettes. His daughter says to him: Daddy, are
you going to die because smoke is getting in your lungs and on your heart?
That is a very, very sad state of affairs. We must take responsibility for
this. This is our public building and these people are our workers.
I am awaiting a favourable response from Treasury Board, because the Director
of Corrections here in the Province said that the decision to go non-smoking has
not been made; the final decision is up to Treasury Board. Mr. Speaker, I ask
this House that Treasury Board rule post-haste on this to get out employees out
of this danger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition, one of many I have presented here on
behalf of the residents of my district in relation to the road condition
throughout the district. This petition, Mr. Speaker, has 377 names on it, one of
the largest I have presented here in awhile. This brings the total amount of
names on the petitions to around 1,000 that I am very pleased to present.
The roads in my district, like many of the roads throughout the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, are in deplorable condition. I have been on my feet
here many, many times in this session of the House to bring forward the concerns
of the people of the district, and certainly the concerns that have been raised
with me, and not only raised with me, Mr. Speaker, but the concerns that I see
in my own travels throughout the district, and the need for roadwork.
Most of the petitions have been coming through in the area of Route 90 which
covers from Peter's River to St. Stephens on up through St. Mary's Bay right
up to St. Catherine's, Mr. Speaker. Road conditions are deplorable through the
Town of Mount Carmel-Mitchells Brook. Several residents of the community have
come forward and raised a concern with me. The access road down through St.
Joseph's, O'Donnells, down to Admiral's Beach is in need of repairs and
maintenance and some recapping needed in that area, especially around the Town
of O'Donnells. The highway just outside of North Harbour is dangerous, to say
the least, and the road between Colinet and North Harbour, and just before you
enter through the community of North Harbour, the roads are in deplorable
condition. There has been some effort by the Department of Works, Services and
Transportation to address the concern and to fill up the hole. With the immense
amount of rain that we are having, they fill it up one day and it is gone out of
the hole the next. What we need there is recapping and resurfacing.
Right out through Route 100, known to most people as Branch country, which
runs between Branch and the community of St. Bride's, Mr. Speaker, and right
on through the community of St. Bride's, down through the community of
Cuslett, up to the top of the hill, Cuslett Lookout, is certainly in need of
major repair. The roads were constructed there and paved in 1979. Route 100-92
down to the community of Point Lance, I was down there last week and it is
certainly in need of work in that area of the district, and many, many people
travel back and forth on a continuous basis. Safety of children travelling on
buses to the school at St. Bride's, Fatima, is a concern. Certainly, travel on
in over the Cape Shore road in through the Town of Placentia. I just happened to
be in there a couple of days ago and a small part of that town, known as
Ferndale, have heavy, heavy problems with the roads there. Throughout the Town
of Placentia there are roads needed just as on Jerseyside hill and other parts
of the district. Also, certainly, without a doubt, the access road to the
communities of Fox Harbour and Ship Harbour are also in need of repairs.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, throughout the whole district, and my
understanding is, it is around $75,000 to recap a kilometre of pavement. In my
own district, I need in excess of 100 kilometres of recapping. Knowing full well
that the provincial budget and provincial roads program this year will now allow
that to happen, we have stressed to the minister time and time again that we
need some work done in the district, and hopefully, too, even though he has a
small budget that he is using, we hope to be able to receive some money from the
department this year to address some of the concerns in the roads in my
district.
Therefore, I am very pleased to stand once again -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just for a moment to finish up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MANNING: Therefore I am very pleased to stand again and present this
petition in the House on behalf of the residents in my district who travel the
roads and the highways and the byways each and everyday, and certainly have
raised the concerns with me. The number one concern, bar none, has to be safety,
especially for buses that are travelling back and forth, emergency vehicles that
are travelling back and forth, and for anybody on these roads who have to
swerving from the holes and the danger spots is something that the people have
raised with me and I am very pleased to raise here in the House today.
Once again, I present this petition on behalf of the resident in my district
and hope that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will find some
money within his existing budget to address some of the concerns I have raised
here today and in other days.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Gander Bay
South. The petition reads as follows:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative
session convened:
The petition of the undersigned residents of Gander Bay South in the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS suitable land for new housing development is limited within the
existing boundary of the local service district of the Gander Bay South; and
WHEREAS the land immediately south of Barry's Brook, the boundary line for
the local service district of Gander Bay South, has been zoned commercial by the
Urban and Rural Planning Division of the Department of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs; and
WHEREAS the Urban and Rural Planning Division of the Department of Municipal
and Provincial Affairs did re-zone the Gander end of the road in question from
commercial to residential;
The undersigned residents of Gander Bay South hereby request the Urban and
Rural Planning Division of the Department of Municipal Affairs to permit an
extension of the local service district's boundary immediately south of Barry's
Brook and re-zone the extended area from commercial to residential.
Mr. Speaker, the availability of suitable land for housing in the rural areas
of our Province is common in a large number of the smaller communities, and
Gander Bay South is certainly no exception.
In Gander Bay South now, Mr. Speaker, which includes the two communities of
George's Point and Harris Point, a number of residents cannot find suitable
land for housing within the boundaries of the local service district. They do,
however, have suitable land just adjacent to the southern boundary at Barry's
Brook along the Gander Bay Highway, Route 330.
The problem the residents are having is with the Protected Roads Division of
the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The land in question has
been zoned as commercial by the department and therefore they will not permit
residential building.
The concern with all of this, according to the residents, is that on the
Gander end of Route 330, an area that was originally zoned as agricultural, is
now being changed. People began building houses on that land without developing
the land for agricultural purposes. It reached a point where it got so bad that
eventually the Town of Gander changed their regulations and it is now zoned as
residential.
Mr. Speaker, the Gander end now being zoned as residential also extends four
or five miles outside of Gander, along the same Gander Bay Highway toward Gander
Bay.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARDING: While on the Gander Bay end, just eighteen or twenty miles
away, the road -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARDING: Just to finish, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARDING: On the Gander Bay end, they are asking now for that end as
well to be zoned as residential.
I fully support the residents of Gander Bay South in their petition to have
the government have the boundary extended as per their request, and have the
area zoned as residential..
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition to present today as well. Once again, I stand to present a
petition on the roads in the Northern Peninsula. I will read the prayer first.
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative
session convened:
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS the people of the Great Northern Peninsula have long tolerated the
unacceptable conditions on the Northern Peninsula Highway, Route 430; and
WHEREAS Route 430 is in such a deplorable and dangerous condition;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to take action to correct this serious situation by resurfacing Route 430.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, many times in the last two years-and-a-bit that I have been
here, I have gotten up and presented petitions on the roads and I have failed
yet, I think, to start off, or somewhere in my petition to speak about the Sally's
Cove enclave. It is a very important
section of highway that is in desperate
need of resurfacing. There are also a couple of points of why. One is that it is
dangerous.
That particular part of the provincial highway system in an enclave within
the Gros Morne Park, and on both sides of that enclave is now a very good
resurfaced highway there. Because of that, it is unexpected when you come to the
end of that good highway that you would come into such a deplorable road.
Approaching that particular
section from the south you come into sort of a
couple of bumps, a couple of maneuvers there, such that lead you to go off the
road. I really would encourage the minister to seriously consider that
particular
section of highway when he is looking at the roads that need to be
done across this Province.
One of the other points that I think makes that
section of highway so
important is that we have invested so much in tourism on the Northern Peninsula.
Even today, to be named in the top eight destinations in Canada by Maclean's
magazine, it goes out and shows how much this country and indeed the world is
looking to the Northern Peninsula as an incredible place to come visit. Having
such a
section of road in this great national park on the Northern Peninsula
sends the exact wrong message that we have been getting out there. We have been
doing a very good job of getting out the message of the Northern Peninsula, but
to have that deterrent right off the bat before you get an opportunity to come
explore such a great place like the Northern Peninsula is very unacceptable.
The other importance of Route 430 is that as now we have built a highway up
to Labrador and the traffic will be coming and going on up through the Northern
Peninsula. We have had an opportunity to go out there and size up and take stock
of this serious situation on the Northern Peninsula, to deal with some of the
sections there to make it passable or acceptable and have a plan to continue on.
There appears to be no plan, only to deal with what is the immediate situation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. YOUNG: By leave, for one second?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. YOUNG: I really believe that the importance of the Northern Peninsula
Highway can only be really and truly dealt with when there is a
federal-provincial agreement, because of the magnitude of the problem.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, the House is debating: That This House Approves in
General the Budgetary Policy of the Government.
I think the Opposition have an amendment indicating, Mr. Speaker, subtly,
that they might be taking a different route.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was wondering when the Government House Leader got that message. My
colleague, the Member for St. John's East proposed a non-confidence motion in
this House, and I want to speak for a few minutes on this particular motion
here. The motion, itself, pretty well sums up our confidence in this government.
I think it is addressed under several items, and I want to just touch on a few.
This motion indicates that this House acknowledge and condemn the government's
failure to:
Represent accurately the Province's fiscal situation. I would say, Mr.
Speaker, that they have not represented and put forth our Province's fiscal
situation accurately.
To manage competently the Province's Treasury. That we have to agree with.
Their failure to provide adequately for the Province's resource wealth. We
have not maximized -
MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Government House Leader, I am allowed to speak on a
non-confidence motion. It might not be for twelve hours, I say to the Government
House Leader, but I am entitled, as other members are, on a non-confidence
motion - the respective leaders and the person who moved it can have an hour, I
understand, and I can speak for twenty minutes. I will see if I will use some of
that twenty minutes to address some of these concerns, because I have made a
significant number of points on the fiscal situation in Question Period in the
last couple of days and also over the course of my comments on the budget
generally.
The government's failure to secure soundly the Province's social
programs. I mean, since this government took office we have had higher and
higher numbers of people waiting to access medical services. That is not soundly
protecting the Province's social programs.
To invest wisely in the Province's youth. They have become overburdened
with debt, the young people coming out of our colleges and universities today,
heavier debts than ever before in our history. This government, in its mandate
over the past fourteen years, allowed tuition to rise over 300 per cent and then
put in a 25 per cent reduction to show what we are doing for students in the
Province.
To maintain properly the Province's infrastructure. Anybody who goes around
this Province, the roads, for example. Unbelievable! You have to have great
navigational skills, great ability. You would almost want to have one of those
Formula One racing drivers to be able to navigate around some of the roads here
in our Province. Our infrastructure in areas is falling down around our ears. We
have a ferry system in the Province almost forty-years old, not replaced. They
haven't followed their plan.
To fight aggressively for the Province's best interests. We have a tendency
to fight when the barn door is closed. We have seen that with the fishery here.
We have to be up in the face of the federal government continually fighting
every step of the way, not trying to react when something gets done, but to be
proactive before we get a negative decision affecting us.
Answer candidly to the Province's people. In other words, tell it like it
is. Don't spend $30,000 a week on advertising to give the impression that
goods things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, if good things are not
happening. Some good things are happening, of course, but there are many things
not happening and not getting reported as the true picture.
Listen attentively to people's concerns. A pretension to do that but not
necessarily a carrying out of that action.
To administer accountability of the Province's departments and agencies. We
have seen Auditor General report after Auditor General report outlying gross
government inefficiencies and ways, improperly complying with the laws and
regulations of our Province. No wonder we wanted to put forth a motion of
non-confidence in the government into the main motion here on the Budget.
To plan prudently for the province's growth, respond creatively to the
desperate need for jobs and discharged effectively any of its other fiduciary
responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, over the last two days in this House I have put forward
questions pertaining to how well we are doing here in our Province economically.
The Minister of Finance and the Premier talk about how great the Gross Domestic
Product is. If you produced $1 billion-worth of oil and all of that went to the
United States and not one job was used in extracting it, we would get zero
benefits from that GDP - the value of that product times the price. We get no
value. Because we have jobs out there, we are getting a percent. The biggest
percent of that, in that value, is being exported out of this Province.
In the last two days, I asked in the House: If things have been so successful
- their Strategic Economic Plan that they are basing it on - why, after eleven
years of that plan, did we see the largest out-migration of people in history,
in fact, the largest out-migration in the western world since the Irish famines?
We have seen 10 per cent of our population disappear in a ten year period. That
is an astronomically amount of people to leave our Province. What was their
response? Talk about Gross Domestic Product - talk about jobs.
The next question I asked, and I did not get much of an answer. The answer I
got was: the glass is half-full. I said: not only did 60,000 people leave our
Province, but those who stayed did not fair as well from this government's
economic policies. The latest report from Stats Canada showed that in this
Province family incomes have not kept pace with the cost of living. In fact, the
median income in this Province declined by 3.7 per cent over a ten year period.
That is the biggest decline in the entire country. There is not another province
in this country that has seen such a decline in incomes going into families in
terms of median incomes.
How will the Premier defend an economic policy that has made Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians poor relative to the rest of this country than they were eleven
years ago? What did the minister say? The Minister of Finance stood up, instead
of the Premier, and said: We like to see the glass as being half-full. Well, I
would like to ask the minister, when is she going to fill up that glass? When is
she going to start doing something constructive to ensure that the wealth from
our resources stay here in our Province? If things are so great, I ask, if
things are so fantastic in our Province, why is it that Stats Canada revealed
about growing poverty in our Province compared to the rest of the country?
Fourteen-point-three percent of average income of a family coming into this
Province comes from federal and provincial programs - like EI and income
support, or traditionally called welfare payments. That is the highest in this
country. If things are so great, why are families in this Province today
depending on EI and depending on welfare payments to make up 14.3 per cent of
that income?
In fact, the newly created Territory of Nunavut is lower. They depend less
than we do here in our Province, a Province that has existed as part of this
country since 1949. There is something wrong with it. How can you get up and say
our economic policies are working? Economic policies, Mr. Speaker, are not
working for people here in our Province.
In 1989, when this government came to power, the personal disposable income -
that is the income in the pockets which people have for their disposal to spend
- of everybody in this Province was over 80 per cent when you cost the goods and
services produced in this Province. That is the Gross Domestic Product. You take
the cost of the goods and services, the amount of them, the price and it gives
you the Gross Domestic Product. Over 80 per cent, when they came to power, of
that Gross Domestic Product was used as personal disposable income. The personal
disposable income grew with the economy. The amount grew.
What has happened today? In the forecast of this budget this year, only 59
per cent of personal disposable income is of GDP. It is only 59 per cent.
Fifty-nine cents out of every dollar, GDP, we could expect to end up in the
pockets and use as personal disposable income of this Province, when almost
eighty-two cents on the dollar when they came to power. Is that an improvement
in our economic plight, our economic situation? No, this is serious. That is a
very serious decline in personal disposable income. That is a sign of wealth,
personal disposable income. It has declined immensely since this government came
to power. It is a product, I would say, of a Strategic Economic Plan that has
failed the people of this Province.
MR. NOEL : (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I would say to the Mines and Energy Minister, he gets in
his seat and says it is wrong. He does not know what I am talking about. He was
not paying attention.
What I said, and I will repeat it for the minister in case he did not
understand it, is that in 1989 the personal disposable income was over 80 per
cent, almost 82 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product. In the forecast by this
government today it is forecasted to be 59 per cent of GDP.
AN HON. MEMBER: GDP has gone up somewhat.
MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly! The minister said GDP has gone up. Why? Because
the GDP has gone up it is great. But, it is not great. I explained it before he
tuned in. I explained the reason why that is exactly the answer. The strategy of
this government has failed to capture that GDP and keep it here in our Province.
This government has allowed the economic wealth from our resources to go to the
Eastern Seaboard and it shows up in the personal disposable income of people in
the United States and other parts of this country. That is what is wrong with
this government's policy.
Six years ago revenues in our Budget were 36 per cent of Goss Domestic
Product. Last year there was only 24 per cent. What does that tell us? As the
economy is growing with Gross Domestic Product, we are not getting the revenues
coming into the coffers of our Province. That s a drastic drop from 36 per cent
to 24 per cent, a one-third drop. A one-third proportionate drop in that. That
is disastrous. That is a product of economic policies of this government that
have failed to work.
Then they talk about how great - and the jobs. Their own publication, Mr.
Speaker, that they put out, this very government published this, it is called,
From the Ground Up. It states that child poverty in this Province has gone up
from 21 per cent in 1991 to 26 per cent in 2000, while child poverty in this
country has gone down by 2 per cent, but in this Province it has gone up. That
is an increase of 25 per cent in the child poverty rate in this Province. That
is an enormous increase just less than tens years of this government. That is an
horrendous number. Poverty has increased. Don't you think, if a Province is
doing so well, if the economy is so great, we should see a reduction in child
poverty? Don't you think we should see personal disposable income, money in
people's pockets, be at least an equivalent chunk or percent of the GDP?
We have not done a good job of keeping revenues here in our Province. That is
the answer. We have not done the job we were elected to do in our Province, and
that is why we are having misery. That is why sixty-five people in a community
on the Northern Peninsula are talking about moving out and moving to the
mainland. That is why there has been a tremendous out-migration, too, because we
have not responded appropriately to meet the crises in the fishery. We have sat
back and had a laissez faire attitude about it and now -
MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Laissez faire attitude about it, yes.
This government, and this very minister who is shouting and interfering
across the House, have done absolutely nothing. He has failed to even get an
infrastructure, a roads agreement with a simple little power point presentation
that paled in comparison to a community in this Province. Now, he is wondering
what is wrong. They are a part of the problem. They are the problem. But, I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, by the way they are acting and by their policies, they
will never be a part of the solution. They will not be a part of the solution
because their policies have not worked. They are a government which is bankrupt
for ideas here. It is a government that have plans that do not work in our
Province. They have lost their touch with rural Newfoundland. They have lost
their touch with the people of this Province, and the people want somebody who
is going to do something about it. They want somebody who is going to try to
turn this Province around by implementing policies that are etched in strong
economic basis; one that is not going to be etched on a political front from
year to year doing band-aid approaches to economic development; one that is
going to be formed on concrete, solid policies that is going to help revitalize
this Province and lead us to a new prosperous era in growth and development here
in our Province.
Before this House sits again, for this session, which will end some time in
the very near future, people will have an opportunity to compare the plans of
this party with the plans of this government, and I certainly hope they will
give an opportunity to people who have a vision and a plan to put that plan into
execution, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Butler): The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand and speak on the amendment,
and to speak on the Budget advanced by this Province indicating the government's
vision for the next year, for the year 2003-2004.
First we had the Throne Speech, which gave the general thrust of the
direction the government was headed. It talked about its general goals and its
objectives: that we wanted to have a good education system, providing a good
education system for our young people so that they could develop themselves to
the maximum and be prepared for the job market, and train themselves according
to the demands of the job market. We want to ensure that our institutions are
ready and geared to the job market and, of course, for general education so that
our young people can get the full education in accordance with the ability of
the Province to pay.
We have put a lot of emphasis on health care. We want to ensure that our
people are provided with the best health care, again in accordance with the
Province's ability to pay. All of these things in education, in health, have
to be in accordance with the Province's ability to pay.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the initiatives that we have taken in education,
proud of the initiatives that we have taken in health, indicating to our people
our goals and our objectives in those two vital areas of government services.
Our social programs, our Strategic Social Plan and the legislation just brought
to the House last fall by the Minister of Human Resources, tremendous
legislation dealing with income and employment, putting emphasis on work and
developing the individual, putting emphasis on developing dignity and
self-esteem of the individual, and again ensuring that individuals are given the
opportunity to develop themselves to a maximum, Mr. Speaker. That is so
important, to allow those kinds of things to develop in society, to allow for
people to develop themselves to their fullest potential. That is what our
programs, that is what our goals, envisage.
Mr. Speaker, something, though, has happened with respect to funding in this
Province in the last few years. I want to make that point. It is all very well
to talk about, we are not doing good enough in education, or that we do have
flaws in our health program.
Today, a lot of the members on the other side presented petitions to have
their roads done in their particular area, and so they should be done. I have
roads in my own district that I would like to get done. I have done a lot. We
have done a lot over the last number of years, but there is still a lot of work
to be done, because, while you are doing one road, another road has wear and
tear on that road. By the time you get a road done in a certain area, you need
to go back to another area. The same thing has happened with the Trans-Canada. I
digress for a moment on that.
Talking about the Trans-Canada, you know, we talk about deals in this
Province. I have often said - and I do not condemn the government of the day,
but Mr. Peckford's government who did the deal for the roads when we gave up
our railway. Do hon. members realize that contract is now over this year, the
deal for roads, and the roads that we started fifteen years ago need to be done
over again.
Honourable members talk about deterioration of the roads. That was the deal
that we got for the railway and now we need to do these roads over again. I have
always thought that was a bad deal. I always thought it was a bad deal from a
couple of aspects. I have always thought that road should have been a twin road
right across the Province. I believe that the federal government should still
have responsibility for the Trans-Canada Highway. We gave up a railway that was
losing money for the Province, that was losing money for the federal government
year after year, and I believe that in that contract there should have been a
provision for maintenance by the federal government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: I believe that should have been in the contract. That should
have been in the deal, that there should have been provision for the federal
government to have a responsibility, shared with the Province - I do not believe
it should have been total - shared with the Province, because they were getting
not a bad deal. Giving up a loser, the railway. Giving up the railway that was a
loser, a perennial loser, I believe that they should have maintained some share,
some responsibility, in the maintenance of the Trans-Canada. Now it is the total
responsibility of the Province, and that is a big responsibility; a big
financial responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the federal government should be more inclined to
look at the Trans-Canada. It is a part of the road system right across the
nation, and should also, of course, look into Labrador, but I am going to leave
that one for the moment. I wanted to talk about the funding that was brought to
my attention by the number of petitions presented by hon. members today for
roadwork in their own area.
Mr. Speaker, up until about the late 1980s, the federal government's share
of the provincial budget was around 50 per cent. Up to the 1980s it was 51 and a
bit. Fifty-one and a half per cent of the provincial budget came from the
federal government. In the 1990s it started going down, until now, this year, it
is 37 per cent of the provincial budget. Mr. Speaker, take 37 per cent of a
budget as opposed to 50 per cent and you would find a tremendous amount of money
missing from the provincial coffers, from the provincial Treasury.
I can tell hon. members, that if the federal government were still giving the
same proportion of money that they had been giving up until the mid-1990s, there
would be no deficit in this Province today. There would be no deficit in this
Province today if the federal government were giving their same share of money.
I say to hon. members, is it little wonder that since the late 1990s, that
they have been reducing and reducing, the money had to be taken from health care
and from education? When the federal government was reducing the money, reducing
their share, that meant the Province had to put in more, more in education, more
in health. Mr. Speaker, that is why we find ourselves today with a deficit of
$300 million, in that area. That is why we are talking about that kind of
deficit, because the Province had to put in the money that the federal
government was taking out.
Mr. Speaker, if the federal government were putting in the share in the
budget that they had been putting in up to the 1990s we would be able to pave
more roads, we would be able to pave some of the roads that hon. members were
asking for today, we would be able to put more money into health, we would be
able to put more money into education and more money into our social programs.
Madam Speaker, looking at the numbers of dollars that the federal government
have cut back, looking at that, I can't believe that the Province has such a
low deficit, when we look at all the monies that the federal government has
taken away over the past number of years. Hon. members try to make a lot out of
that. Where are we going to get the money? Where is the money coming from? Madam
Speaker, there is only one simple answer to that, where is the money coming
from. They don't want us to cut it from education. I am sure they wouldn't
agree with that. Is that going to be the plan, to cut the money from education,
to cut the money from health, to cut down on roadwork, to say we are going to
have no roadwork this year, to cut down on our social programs? Already, they
talk about the child poverty. Well, obviously we need more money in social
programs. They talk about our health care. We need more money in health. We do
not need less money in health; we need more. We do not need less money for our
social programs; we need more, because our people deserve more.
Madam Speaker, we need more money to provide the citizens of this Province
with a standard of living comparable to that in other parts of Canada.
Presently, that is not the circumstance. That is the basis on which equalization
is granted. That is the basis on which equalization is granted, so that we can
have a standard of living with a similar tax level that is comparable to the
rest of the country, and that is not happening.
Obviously, Madam Speaker, there is only one place for us to get the money.
There is only one place for Newfoundland and Labrador to get its money, and that
is from its natural resources. That is where the money must come from. We must
get a greater share from our natural resources.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. LUSH: We certainly hope so. We certainly hope so, because governments
with which he has been associated, the hon. member, are responsible for the
level of monies that we are getting from our natural resources, Madam Speaker.
That has to be our focus. I am not interested in blaming anybody. That is not
(inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. LUSH: That has to be our focus over the next little while. That has
to be the focus. That has to be the policy. That has to be the perspective. That
is where we have to narrow in on, getting more money from our natural resources.
Madam Speaker, that is going to be the focus of this government over the next
little while, ensuring that we are not exploited, that Newfoundland and Labrador
is getting more money from its natural resources, from its offshore oil, from
its minerals and from hydro development. That is where we have to get our money.
That has to be our focus. That is going to be the concentration of this
government over the next little while, trying to correct historical errors.
Trying to correct historical mistakes is one. It is an area we have to move in
on to ensure that this Province is getting its fair share. That is all we are
asking for. We are not asking for any more - that this Province gets its fair
share.
Madam Speaker, that has to be the focus. That has to be the concentration. I
say to hon. members opposite, that is what we plan to do in order to give the
people of this Province a standard of living in order to ensure that the people
of this Province have a standard of living that is comparable to other parts of
this country with the same and with reasonable levels of taxation. That is where
we are going. This is where this government plans to take us. That is the
concentration. That is the level and that is our policy. That is going to be our
effort in the next little while, to ensure that this Province is getting its
fair share from its natural resources. That is the only way to go. That is where
the money has to come from to fix the deficit. That is where the money has to
come from to put more money into education, more money into health, more money
into all of our social programs, and we are going to do our best, Madam Speaker,
to ensure that policy is pursued.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It is my pleasure to stand up today and give some remarks on this
non-confidence motion, and I would like to refer to some of the remarks that
were made during the Budget Speech and also during the non-confidence motion.
We had the Member for Gander speaking about how they are working for victims
of violence and they have approved transition house transportation up front, and
that is commendable, Madam Speaker, it really is, but women cannot live in
transition houses all of their lives, and we have known of fatalities and
sadness that happened in the community by women whose spouses had peace bonds
put on them, and these same women had been in transition houses and, as I said,
could not live there for the rest of their lives, and then moved back into their
home into the community, reported to the police what was happening, but
unfortunately, as in one instance that I know, a woman was murdered by the
spouse who was making threats and stalking her but the resources were not in
place. So, it looks very good on paper but if we cannot put resources in place
to ensure that the laws that we have made are enacted and carried out, then what
good are the laws? They are not worth the paper they are written on. Women whose
lives are in danger cannot live in transition houses for all of their lives.
Members opposite referred to support and employment for persons with
disabilities. Yes, there are supports and there are some employment for people
with disabilities, but, at the same time, caregivers for the people with the
disabilities have had their respite cut drastically. Places have been closed.
The Pre-Vocational Training Centre on Topsail Road was closed, and it was
suggested that the people go out and get involved in programs in the community.
As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, most of the people who were going
to the Pre-Vocational Training Centre are now out having just respite during the
day. There are very, very few programs out in the communities with them.
Members referred to the extra money that families were getting. While that
may be so, we know the record of people living in poverty. We know that the
children's poverty rate is rising in this Province, much to our shame. I did
not hear anything mentioned about single employable adults who are expected to
live, if they are living with relatives, at a $128 a month, and if they are not
living with relatives, the total amount of money that a single employable adult
receives is less than $200. Now, make no wonder we have people who are living in
slums and living in places that are dangerous for their lives.
Last Wednesday, when I put forth a private member's motion that the
government pick up $30,000 for the School Lunch Program so that 3,000 children
could take advantage of hot meals for the month of June, there was political
posturing. The government did, in fact, do what was said in the resolution. The
members opposite know that we cannot request money in a private member's
motion, but I asked that the government see to it that the lunch program was
kept going and they did that. How? By going into next year's budget for that
school lunch program. What that school lunch program asked for here in this
House of Assembly was what this government spent in one week in advertising
themselves. Thirty thousand dollars - in promoting themselves - is what the
people for the school lunch program asked for to provide meals for 3,000
children for the month of June. This government advanced the money from next
year's budget, so that they go into September with only $25,000 instead of
$75,000. Pure political posturing on the part of this government.
Reference was also made to the social assistance caseloads declining, and
well they may be, but how many people have left our Province? The people who
have left the Province are the people who were on social assistance and they
left to get jobs. That is one way to get the caseloads to decline, have our
people out-migrate.
The Government House Leader got up and spoke about the declining money from
Ottawa. With each person that leaves our Province the amount of money that we
get from Ottawa declines. The former Premier saw to that when he signed the
equalization program. He is the one who signed it, that we receive it on a per
capita basis, knowing that our population was declining. So make no wonder they
are receiving less money from Ottawa.
Ministers got up and spoke about the amount of money in the health care
budget. Well, the health care budget has risen since 1997, but in 1997 it was
the Department of Health and the Department of Social Services. That combined
budget was $1.3 billion. Then in 1998, when Community Services went over to
Health, the social assistance budget declined and the Department of Health and
Community Services went up. So, basically, we are shifting the money on paper,
but it looks like the Department of Health's budget has gone up. It has gone
up somewhat, there is no disputing that, but not at the rate this government
would like people to believe that it has. When they took Community Services out
of the Department of Social Services and put it in with Health, then some of the
budget from the Department of Social Services went over to the Department of
Health as well.
The Member for Gander also referred to the health boards and the job they are
doing in balancing their budget, but they are balancing their budget on the
backs of people. In the past couple of years, I have had people make
representation to me - people who were in hospital, and their families would
call me. There was one disabled gentleman in hospital. He knew that he was
dying, a very young man, and he wanted to go home to die. The bureaucracy that
man had to go though. They barely got him home to his house - granted, his dying
wish was to go home to his house to die - because of the cuts in home care and
his ability to access home care, or his family's ability to access home care
on his behalf, so that he could go home to die.
They get up and paint such a rosy picture of what they are doing for the
people out here - budgets are being balanced and they are spending so much
money. Yes, they are spending money on promoting themselves and spending money
on entertaining themselves and their spouses while children are out there going
to school hungry.
Speaking of Health and Community Services Boards, I had another person, a
nurse, she knew she was dying and wanted to go home to her own house. Five hours
of home care a day at approximately $10 an hour, Madam Speaker, would have done
it for her, but because there was a freeze on home care that woman was unable to
access $50 a day, but the government paid $700 or $800 a day for her to stay in
hospital and die in a hospital bed rather than home in her own bed. Now, what
are we saying? What are we doing for the people of this Province?
The government's own report, From the Ground Up - and I am not sure how
reliable this is. I do not even know but the statistics, the figures in this are
probably worse.
MR. H. HODDER: They are two years old.
MS S. OSBORNE: They are two years old, my colleague from Waterford Valley
has informed me. Yes, they are two years old. Not only are they two years old,
but how many two-parent families were polled in this? How many of them were
single-parent families? The polling was done by telephone. How many people are
out there living in far worse conditions but could not be accessed because they
probably did not have a telephone? How many of those people are out there? In
any case, the figures come in and they show that the number of children under
age eighteen living in this Province has declined by 30 per cent since 1991, but
the number of children living in poverty has not declined at the same rate.
Based on before tax income, 26 per cent of children were living in poverty in
the year 2000, up from 21 per cent in 1991.
While the government will get up and say they are doing their best, it is
based on their ability to pay - and they are touting how Moody's has given us
such a credit rating. Talk to the children who go to school with an empty lunch
box every morning, or talk to the parents who have to keep their children home
from school because they are embarrassed that they do not have lunch to give
them. Tell them about Moody's. Tell the 26 per cent of the children in this
Province who are living in poverty about Moody's. See how interested they are
in that.
The Minister of Finance refers to the glass being half full or half empty.
There are people in this Province - I would like to say, Madam Speaker - who
have nothing in their glass and nothing in their cupboards to put in their glass
or on their plates either. Tell them about Moody's. Tell those people when
they open their cupboard doors and there is no food there, or they open their
refrigerators and there is no food there. Tell them about glasses that are half
full or half empty, or totally empty as is the case with many of the people in
this Province. Most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians say they have never gone
without food. Ten percent say they worry about not having enough to eat. Tell
the 10 per cent of the residents of this Province who worry that they do not
have enough to eat, tell them about Moody's, Madam Speaker.
This government has been in power for fifteen years now, almost fifteen
years.
AN HON. MEMBER: Fourteen year.
MS S. OSBORNE: Fourteen years. I would like to give a few points on some
of the highlights of that fifteen years.
They delayed the creation of a Child and Youth Advocate for almost a decade
after a parliamentary committee laid out in detail exactly how to do it and why
doing it was so critical.
It took a lot for them to re-establish the Ombudsman's Office, more than a
decade after they themselves eliminated, with the current Premier, voting in
favour of its elimination. That is part of their fifteen year record, Madam
Speaker.
They oversaw an increase in Memorial University's tuition fees to 350 per
cent of their 1989 value before they realized, more than a decade later, that
tuition fees were too high and might have something to do with the ridiculous
increase in student and graduate debt levels and all the hardships that those
debt levels bring. Now they can get up and say that they have reduced tuition or
that we have among the lowest tuition, but they themselves raised that tuition
to 350 per cent of the 1989 value. I guess it is easy to lower it when you have
raised it to such an extent.
This same government, in their almost fifteen years, has left public service
pensioners off the group it set up to manage the Public Service Pension Plan.
That, I guess, speaks volumes of what that government feels of the senior
citizens and their pensioners in this Province.
They insured vehicles twice and made countless other sloppy administrative
errors, the Auditor General identifies, that cost the taxpayers considerable
sums. They have wasted hundreds of thousands of public dollars sending ministers
and their spouses on jaunts around the globe doing business that in so many
cases could be done by telephone, fax and e-mail without the lofty hotel rooms
and the fine dining expenses.
It took a lot of planning for the Liberals, in this case the Premier, to head
to a First Ministers' Conference promising to stonewall on a health funding
agreement unless Newfoundland and Labrador's equalization concerns were
addressed, a bazaar position to begin with, and then to back down leaving the
Province looking weak and not too bright.
The Premier, as well, brought in an equalization proposal to the Prime
Minister and walked away claiming victory, only to have the Prime Minister's
office issue a news release saying that the same Premier had completely
understood what the Prime Minister had said. That is part of the fourteen year
record, Mr. Speaker, -
AN HON. MEMBER: You mean misunderstood what the Prime Minister had said.
MS S. OSBORNE: Misunderstood what the Prime Minister had said, yes.
It took a lot of planning in the fourteen years to maintain the highest
unemployment rate in the country even when we are the economic growth hotbed of
the country for years running.
This same government has allowed health board deficits to go completely out
of control until more than midway through the fiscal year when reigning them in
meant cutting twice as deep. I refer to the home care freeze and the respite
cuts, et cetera, and the mismanagement of the health care dollar by leaving
patients in hospital at $700 or $800 a day and in one case, I remember, leaving
a person in the Intensive Care Unit at $1,200, $1,500, $1,800 a day - I am not
sure of the figure - when probably $150 a day of home care would have done it.
That is the kind of mismanagement that this government is getting on with, Madam
Speaker.
They have left the Province without adequate home care services or sufficient
home care beds, forcing the boards to place seniors in costly acute care beds
while line-ups for procedures continue. I have given examples of that, Madam
Speaker, and those couple of examples that I have given are just examples. They
are just scratching the surface of the mismanagement of this government.
They have left police officers without backup of trained, medical health
professionals who could help in a time of crisis, and, to our shame, we have
seen a couple of the residents of our Province who were killed by police
officers because there was not adequate backup, or because of the lack of
services out in the community.
It was very good, and it looked very politically correct, to
de-institutionalized people, and that is the correct thing to do,
de-institutionalize people and let them get out and live in the communities,
which are their communities, Madam Speaker. But, when we de-institutionalize
them, and as they go through the door of the institution, we close the door
behind them and don't put the resources into the community to see to it that
they can sustain themselves in the community. Unfortunately, because of these
lack of resources, tragedies will occur, and we have seen those tragedies.
Just recently, a young man went into the Waterford Hospital looking for help.
There was a near fatality as well in that instance because, for whatever reason,
looking at the bottom line, the resources were not there to help that gentleman,
and there was a very unfortunate incident as a result of that as well.
On that as well, a couple of years ago in this House of Assembly it was
brought up by this Opposition that we should provide a place in the community
other than the lock-up so that our people, who are experiencing some
misfortunate because of their mental illness, can be bought to a safe and
comfort place rather than being brought to the lock-up waiting for an
assessment. That idea was scoffed at. What? Put them back into the Waterford? Do
you hear what the hon. member is saying? Put them back in the Waterford? No,
give them a place where they can go; a safe and comfortable place with at least
a bit of dignity.
Last year, not in the most recent budget but in the budget before that, the
government said that they would allow $800,000 for the renovation of the
Waterford Hospital, and I understood that was supposed to be ready by some time
in the fall. I think that probably - I do not know how fast the construction or
the renovations are going in there, but I understand now, and I stand to be
correct on that, that it may not be available this fall after all, which is most
unfortunate.
The same Liberal government has announced public health forums for the
public, and then they have left them closed to the public. They were by
invitation only. I received an invitation to such a public health forum, to go
there on behalf of my constituents, and I was not allowed to speak. So that is
the kind of public health forum, that is the kind of openness, that this
government is - that is obviously the way they operate, to have public health
forums -
AN HON. MEMBER: That is openness and transparency.
MS S. OSBORNE: That is openness and transparency.
Selective people there were allowed to speak. Anybody couldn't just go. I
was fortunate enough to get an invitation to go, but just to observe, and my
colleagues the same way. Any of us who went to those public health forums
discussing the public health of the residents of this Province, of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: The public were not invited. Only those invited to speak
were allowed to speak.
This same government that is proposing wellness and well-being for the
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador also announced a cut in physical
education. They also announced cuts in music and art in the primary school, and
that move angered one prominent educator so much that she resigned in protest.
Then, this same government reversed the decision and claimed they never made it
in the first place. This is what we have been dealing with, Madam Speaker. This
is the record of this government for the fourteen years that they have been in.
The current Premier, when he was Education Minister, abruptly announced that
the public exam marketing board would be eliminated and teachers would have to
correct the exams. The only problem is that he neglected to mention this to the
teachers before he announced it. The teachers refused, so then he abruptly
cancelled public exams just before they were scheduled, throwing students lives
and careers in jeopardy. Faith in the public exam process has never quite
recovered from that instance of Liberal planning. That is all part of this, the
fourteen years, of this Liberal government, Madam Speaker.
Once again, I will repeat - and I cannot repeat this enough - that this
particular government has maintained, one record that they have maintained, is
the highest child poverty rate in the country. We can get up and say we are
first in this and we are first in that, but we should hang our heads in shame.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS S. OSBORNE: By leave, Madam Speaker?
MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
PREMIER GRIMES: Ten seconds.
MS S. OSBORNE: Ten seconds. The Premier has given me ten seconds. I hope
some time that I can be just as generous, Mr. Premier.
It took a lot of planning for the Liberals to announce a three-year income
tax cut, as we had recommended, boast that the plan was actually stimulating the
economy, as we had predicted, and then cancel the third year saying that it was
unaffordable.
Now that the Premier has given me just ten seconds to clue up, so that I do
not want to be abruptly cut in the middle of a sentence, thank you very much,
Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I would like to participate, and I am pleased to participate, in the debate
on the non-confidence motion arising from the Budget motion, which is a
traditional motion. We have had one every year since I have been here. I have
not seen one pass yet, but maybe this year will be an exception, looking at the
numbers across the way in their seats at the moment. Maybe this year will be an
exception, if it is brought to a quick vote, but I am not sure whether that is
going to be the case, if they will bring in the members for that vote. I do want
to say a few words in this debate, because it is a debate on the general
budgetary policy of the government.
I noticed the Premier in the House today taking advantage of a question from
the Member for Ferryland on the issue of incomes in the Province and GDP and
various other economic indicators. The Premier took pains to point out that he
thought this was a remarkable achievement that the per capita debt or per capita
borrowing by individuals in the Province was the lowest in Canada; that the
individual debt, the burden on families, was the lowest in Canada. This was
somehow an economic achievement of his government.
Mr. Speaker, the sad fact of the matter is, the reason that the debt of
individuals in this Province isn't higher is probably because they do not have
access to the loans. It is probably because the banks will not lend them the
money, Madam Speaker. Because, if you look across the country, the places with
the highest (inaudible) are the people with the most money, because everyone
knows that banks will only give you money if you already have money. If you
already have money, the banks would be happy to give you money.
The Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods knows that. He farmed for
years, and I do not think the banks went to him: Mr. Woodford, here is some
money. I know you do not have any money. You are a struggling farmer. You are
trying to make a living. Here is a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Here is a
couple of hundred thousand dollars, go and farm. Go ahead and do business.
I do not think so. I think they waited until he had some money. Then the bank
managers phoned up and said: Mr. Woodford, would you like to borrow some money?
Because they knew he was in a position to pay it back, and everyone knows that
is the way the banks work. That is why the per capita debt of individuals, not
per capita government borrowing but the per capita debt of individuals, is so
high in this Province.
In fact, Madam Speaker, according to figures released by St