Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 21 May 1998 (43rd General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIII No. 29)
1998-05-21
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 21, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 29
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our routine proceedings the Chair would like to welcome
to the Gallery today thirty-five students of Democracy class in Brother Rice High School,
in the District of St. John's East, accompanied by teacher, Carino Jardine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have twenty-eight Level II students from
Jane Collins' Academy in Hare Bay, in the District of Terra Nova, accompanied by teachers;
Kirk Goulding and Shirley Goulding.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform hon. members that I would table amendments to
the Public Tender Act in the House of Assembly this afternoon. Earlier today,
representatives of various groups and organizations joined with me in a press conference
to outline the general directions of those amendments.
I would like first of all to acknowledge the interest in this
consultation process and express my appreciation to all interest groups for their
cooperation and for their candid discussion of the issues surrounding the Public Tender
Act. During the consultation process, more than 100 individuals attended the public
information sessions and my Department received more than forty written submissions. This
was an open process which fostered debate and dialogue on how legislation governing
procurement practices should be structured.
Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of positive comments about the Public
Tender Act and about the importance of preserving the spirit of the Act and the principles
of fairness, competition and openness. The amendments I am introducing into the House
today, Mr. Speaker, respect and maintain those principles.
Among some of the most significant amendments is the establishment of a
Registry of locally produced products which will be used as a reference point, wherever
possible, in calling tenders. This move is intended to give local businesses a fair
opportunity to bid on government contracts and on subcontracts. Also, Mr. Speaker, we will
be making provisions to allow Requests for Proposals under special circumstances. In
addition, exemptions for economic development purposes will be permitted in some
instances. Government is also introducing a modest increase in thresholds for inflationary
purposes. As well, we are opening the door to electronic tendering by removing the
statutory requirement for adverting all tender calls in a generally circulated newspaper.
Mr. Speaker, for the most part, the way we procure goods and services
will not change. Low price will continue to be the primary factory in awarding contracts,
however, we must also make provisions for unique instances that may arise from time to
time.
The amendments that I am tabling today represent the views and concerns
of a variety of groups and organizations representing both the private and the public
sectors. We have worked closely with all of our partners to strengthen the legislation for
the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement, a full
ten minutes before the House sat today; an improvement, Mr. Speaker. I thank him for that.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the minister's statement: Consultation
Process, again it is a good thing. Finally, Mr. Speaker, they are starting to listen to
some of the public out there, something we have been calling for, for some time.
On this side of the House, the member for St. John's South had public
meetings himself, over the past winter, with regard to manufacturers inside the Province.
The registry of locally produced products: A good thing again, Mr.
Speaker. We called for that also on this side of the House. It gives access and
opportunity to local businesses, Mr. Speaker.
Now, with respect to the request for proposals: I had some concerns
when this was spoken about, that the minister would make changes to the Public Tender Act,
and that, in actual fact, it may weaken the Public Tender Act. I have concerns that the
request for proposals
section may, in actual fact, weaken the Public Tender Act.
One aspect of it is, that it gives to much power to the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Technology in unique situations. Who is going to define unique
situations, Mr. Speaker? The minister, in his release this morning, at his press
conference, referred to the fact that in these situations of request for proposals we
report to the House of Assembly. If that is going to be the case, I would suggest that in
the reports to the House, the first thing that would have to be available would be: Why
was there a request for proposal over the Public Tender Act?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: There should be an evaluation, a criteria report
included -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. J. BYRNE: There should be an evaluation, a criteria report, Mr.
Speaker. Who decides on the rationale for the decisions, and who gets the contract, Mr.
Speaker, and how much is the contract worth?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
Does he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The Chair asked if there was leave, and my understanding was that there
was no leave. Members on this side of the House said there was no leave.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We welcome improvements to the Public Tender Act. We know there have
been some significant problems with government's operation of the existing act, and we
ought to be very weary of what changes might be made in the request for proposals. I would
also look for some improvement, Mr. Speaker, in the area of subcontractors where we have
general contractors, after they get a tender, going around, shopping it around, and doing
improper things with these contracts.
Mr. Speaker, I would also welcome an approach to a fair wages condition
in public tendering so we don't have people bidding down the wages of workers, and
particularly construction workers in this Province. That should be part of the Public
Tender Act improvements as well.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today government's decision with
respect to the community fish plant at Lawn, one of only three remaining government-owned
processing facilities on the Island portion of our Province.
Over the years this plant was leased to a number of companies, but it
has been idle since 1994 because of the impact of the groundfish moratoria.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that government is selling the Lawn
facility to Grand Atlantic Incorporated, the company that owns the fish plant in the
nearby Town of St. Lawrence. Essentially, the Lawn plant will now be integrated with the
St. Lawrence operation, which employed an average of 250 people per week in 1997, with
employment peaking at times to more than 500.
This divestiture will be beneficial to the economies of the towns of
Lawn and St. Lawrence and the surrounding region. Grand Atlantic, having invested several
million dollars or more in refurbishing the St. Lawrence plant to permit the processing of
snow crab primarily, is actively pursuing the diversification of its operations into other
species. Access to the Lawn facility will therefore further strengthen the role which it
will pay in the local economy, given prospects for the recovery of 3Ps cod.
Grand Atlantic's operational plans for Lawn will only enhance the
viability of the St. Lawrence plant but will also provide additional jobs for plant
workers from Lawn, exclusive of approximately seventy-five workers from Lawn who have
already received employment at St. Lawrence. Initially, an additional twenty plant workers
will find employment at Lawn, where the principal emphasis will be on the production of
salted fish. In this context, Grand Atlantic will invest approximately $500,000 in the
refurbishing of the Lawn plant without assistance from the Province. It is anticipated
that the workforce at both locations will total upwards of 500 in 1998, thereby having a
major economic impact on the region's economy.
Mr. Speaker, it is government's full intention to remove itself
completely from the ownership of community-based fish processing facilities, and to see
the industry driven fully by private sector investment. Government's decision with respect
to the Lawn plant is fully consistent with this policy objective. It is also consistent
with government's regional fish processing objectives in that the combined operations of
both plants will ensure that the regional processing capacity in the area is optimized.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are certainly happy over here to hear that news, and happy for the
people in Lawn, I say to the minister. When you hear of twenty people going to work in a
community the size of Lawn, it would be probably the equivalent to 200 or 300 going to
work right here in the City of St. John's. That is about the only economic activity that
we are going to see in some of those rural areas, activity that is going to come from the
fishery in this Province.
I have read the minister's statement. I thank him for providing it to
me prior to the opening of the House. I thought I might see there what money the Province
got for the sale of this particular facility, since the minister said it was sold to Grand
Atlantic. I also wonder if the minister now is doing a double take, because the minister
continues to talk about overcapacity in the processing industry. What the minister is
doing is putting all the government-owned plants right back into processing capacity
again. He has talked about that there are only two out of the three remaining, which
hopefully will go back in processing again. I am wondering how the minister can stand here
on one hand and say we need to reduce capacity in processing -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - and on the other hand take government-owned
plants that have been closed since 1992 and open them up and put them right back in the
industry again. I would like some clarification -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - from the minister on those particular issues.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does
he have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased to hear the news from the minister today that the
people of Lawn will have an opportunity to work in the fish plant in the next short while.
I am very pleased also that Grand Atlantic is prepared to make the kind of investment it
is in innovative products, and hopefully they will be successful at that. However, I don't
think we should say that the only kind of fish plant or fish operation should be
exclusively private. We have some terrific examples of community, economic-based fishery
and fishing operations (inaudible) the Fogo Island Co-op, and the Fishermen's Union Shrimp
Company -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: - and others which should also play an important role
in our fishery and our community development activities.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the inability to reach property agreements with the Roman
Catholic Episcopal Corporation is interfering with school board plans for renovations and
reorganization of existing school resources in time for the September, 1998-99 school
year. I am referring specifically to the situation surrounding Dunne Memorial Academy,
Dunne Primary, and St. Anne's school in District 9, as well as St. Joseph's High School,
St. George's, in District 4. The two projects, Mr. Speaker, involve $4.3 million worth of
extensions and renovations and are intended to improve facilities for over 600 students in
the two areas.
In July of 1997, almost a year ago, the Department of Education
authorized funding for these two projects; and since that date, despite the efforts of the
boards to reach an agreement with the RC Episcopal Corporation, their attempts have been
unsuccessful.
Section 84 of The Schools Act, 1997, requires the denominational
authority to enter into an agreement with the school board before the board can expend any
funds to renovate, refurbish, modernize or add new construction components. All parties
concerned with these two projects are meeting today and I urge them to resolve the
situation without further delay. Failing that, Mr. Speaker, government is prepared to take
the legislative action necessary to resolve this serious problem if boards and the Roman
Catholic Episcopal Corporation are unable to reach a satisfactory agreement.
All planning leading to an expenditure on these projects is in limbo at
this point because of this negotiating impasse. The result is that the children in these
areas, over 600 of them, may not be provided with the types of educational facilities
conducive to their learning experiences. I am very concerned that if agreement is not
reached shortly there will be no work possible in these facilities this summer, and
another school year will pass before much needed work can commence.
Mr. Speaker, we have the responsibility to ensure that the schools in
question, and for that matter all schools, are ready for student occupancy in time for the
September 1998-99 school year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have great difficulty with this statement, Mr. Speaker, and I will
tell you why: because this is the way of the hammer. This is the way of the legislative
hammer, the legislative threat.
What this minister ought to do is show leadership, Mr. Speaker, by
providing the resources, by providing the personnel, to the parties who are involved in
negotiation, to hopefully work out a resolution and to resolve this dispute. That is what
the minister should do. He should not hold this legislative hammer over all parties. He
should in fact offer resources, offer the personnel, and assist in the hopes of a speedy
resolution. That is what he can do.
He can also go a step further.
Section 84 of the act includes
denominational authorities and the boards. Why not include and invite the citizens of the
various communities so that they can have some say also in the hopes of a speedy
resolution? I say to the minister, no more legislative threats, no more hammer approach.
Let's work it out with leadership by his own department.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does
he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think we all understand in the Province that ultimately the public
interest gives the Province the power to expropriate private property, or in this case a
school, and
Section 84 of the education act deals with some of these issues. I think we
should be very wary of making sure that this is a last resort in the kind of delicate
situation we have between church and state in the Province. Perhaps we should better be
talking about the kind of principles that might be involved in an appropriate negotiation,
the kind of principles that might be involved in compensation, and the kind of principles
that should guide us to a solution before we start talking about using the hammer of
legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask, again, some questions of the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Technology with the closure of BPS Imaging. Can the minister confirm that HRDC,
the day this centre opened, began to subsidize 100 per cent, all of the salaries for
employees at that company?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer any questions that
have to do with the provincial government's funding of the centre. Any questions on
federal funding should be put to the federal government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to HRDC officials who have
indicated they have been working with the Province since day one on this issue, and that
actually their subsidy amounted to $8,000 per job, which was on top of the $5,000 per job
the Province provided, which was actually $13,000 per job. Maybe the minister can confirm
this: that in fact each and every month that centre was open, HRDC provided $110,000 up
front to cover the salary costs. Can the minister confirm that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: I guess, I don't know, Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member
is getting to some point. Whatever the federal government provided, the federal government
provided. It was their decision to do that. I have been dealing with the money that was
put forward by the Province. I said up front that the money the Province put into this
centre was to attract the centre. It was to deal with the things like the cost of
equipment, start-up costs, that go into establishing a call centre. If the hon. member has
questions he wants to put to HRD, then he should put them to HRD.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister.
Yesterday she tabled a document in the House which said that part of the money the
Province gave to this company - she said that a loan guarantee of $200,000 was put in
place at the request of BPS by Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador; $53,500 of this was
drawn down to cover the payroll of May 8, 1998, pending receipt of traditional job
funding.
You cannot have it both ways. Traditional job funding was provided up
front each and every month, not after the fact, so there was no waiting period. The
question I ask the minister is: How is it that we can pay $53,000 on top of salaries that
have already been paid?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we had every indication that money would
flow from HRD; there was no question about that. It was when the demise of the call centre
took place and the closure took place, when the sheriff went in there, HRD stopped flowing
the money.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: For the record, Mr. Speaker, the payroll was paid up
front. Any payroll money that the Province put in was in addition to, so it would not be
covering 100 per cent of the salaries; but the payroll money that the Province put in
could amount to 120 per cent of salaries. That is how ridiculous the situation is.
Let me ask the minister this: Can she confirm that there was sufficient
enough funds provided to the call centre to pay all of the employees up until last Friday?
If she can confirm that, the question remains, then: Why is it that employees are still
two weeks out of salary?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Now, Mr. Speaker, the member has hit on something that is
of interest to me and that is the salaries that are owing to those employees. That is a
real concern for us, and one on which we are working very diligently. We have been dealing
with the committee that has been struck. Officials in my department have been speaking
with a Ms Puddicombe on this, and the whole point is to try and make sure that these
people are not out of pocket. That is the priority here, Mr. Speaker.
We have people here who worked and are entitled to receive money for
the hours that they put in. We are working very hard through the Labour Standards Division
of the Department of Environment and Labour to try and do everything we possibly can to
help them realize the money that is coming to them.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that four weeks
ago she was informed by HRD officials that an audit would be done, which in fact was three
weeks before the call centre closed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we met with HRD about the possibility of an
audit and they expressed some concerns. We encouraged them to go for the audit, but we
also had an understanding with HRD that as long as that centre remained open they would
flow the salary money.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: You were aware then, three weeks prior to the centre
closing down, that HRD were going to conduct an audit because of some significant concerns
they had. Is that what the minister is saying?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that HRD was going to conduct an
audit, yes.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: The minister said she was aware of an audit.
Yesterday, the minister in the House indicated that there was no need for the Province to
do an audit of BPS Imaging due to the fact that HRDC was already carrying out such a
procedure.
Would the minister please inform the House, then, of her department's
participation in the Terms of Reference of this audit - especially in view of the fact
that she knew about it four weeks ago - and indicate those terms which specifically
specify that provincial sources of funding will be traced and accounted for?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, in the discussions that my officials have
had with HRD there is a comprehensive audit being done by a very reputable firm, and we
are waiting for the results of that audit. We want to make sure, of course, that if that
audit is not complete we will go for an audit. But, Mr. Speaker, why would we duplicate
efforts? It does not make sense. There is a comprehensive audit being done.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Did the Province participate in the Terms of
Reference for this audit to ensure that the provincial money that was spent was accounted
for, yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, HRD is doing an audit. We will wait for the
outcome of that audit, which I expect will be finished this week, or so HRD says. If that
audit does not come through with the type of information we are looking for, we will do
our own audit. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not about to duplicate efforts if there is in fact
a comprehensive audit being done.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: You duplicated payrolls.
MR. E. BYRNE: A good point, I say from the House Leader and Member
for Ferryland, that government did not mind duplicating payrolls but they do not want to
duplicate audit efforts to ensure that the public interests are being protected.
Mr. Speaker, the provision of funding for BPS Imaging was no doubt
covered by a contract between the Province and the company. Can the minister table that
contract, or a copy of that contract, in the House for all to see?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer whatever questions
the hon. member wants to put to me on this call centre: on the demise of the call centre;
on the money that went into the call centre; on why the money went into the call centre;
on the number of employees that were employed. I am not about to go tabling a contract
between the private sector company and the government on this call centre.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that close to $1
million of public money is not open for public scrutiny in this House? Is that what the
minister is saying? I ask her again: Will she table the contract between her department,
the government and the company, in the House? Will she do that, Mr. Speaker, yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me say again, there is an individual
called the Auditor General who will look into whatever happened in this case. That is to
whom we have to report. I am answering whatever questions there are to answer with respect
to this contract. Again, whatever questions the hon. member opposite wants to ask, I will
answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, it would be the first
time an answer came to the questions I have asked on this issue in the last three days.
Let me ask the minister this: The demise of BPS Imagining and the
start-up of Cabot Call Centre seem to have occurred sequentially. What part has the
availability of provincial funding, which is a legitimate question I would think, played
in the deterioration of the partnership of BPS Imagining? And have we paid twice for one
call centre, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, again the member is out in left field.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS FOOTE: What has happened here, Mr. Speaker, is that the initial
call centre started up. The second call centre started up on December 2. The problems with
the ice storm and other problems did not come into play until January. The second partner
decided to remove himself from the partnership the end of January. No, it is not the same
call centre. They were not even doing the same type of business. The hon. member knows
that BPS Imagining was doing portrait studio business for the Bay. The business he is in
now is the selling of magazines and charitable donations. It is a totally different
business, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: My understanding is that last January or February
when the Vice-President of the Hudson Bay Company came down and indicated to the company
that they were no longer independently owned, that they would be branching out into other
products and services like magazines. Can the minister confirm that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that the Bay will be
branching out into selling magazines. I do not even know if the Bay is into selling
magazines. I can tell you that the Bay carries 40 licences - licences for things like
carpet cleaning, drapery cleaning, portrait studios, any number of licences. But no, Mr.
Speaker, I do not know if magazines is one of them. I do know that the business that is
being done now through Cabot Call Centre is not for work on behalf of the Bay.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, maybe it is me. One hundred per cent of
the salaries were provided, another $800,000 worth of forgivable loans provided on top of
that, and the company goes bankrupt. Now, am I the only one who wants to ask some
questions on this? Why is the minister not being more forthcoming?
Let me ask her this: Can the minister inform the House where the
Province's investment went? For example, was it used to purchase equipment? If so, how
much of it was used to purchase equipment?
Was it used to pay outside consultants? If so, how much of it was used
to pay outside consultants? Was any of it used to pay salaries? If so, how much of our
investment was used to pay salaries? And was any of our investment into this company used
to pay or buy out any one of the partners when their relationship dissolved?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I have said from day one that this is a
competitive business, that what we have done is no different than what is done in any
other jurisdiction when you are competing for this type of business. The $800,000 was a
request that was made. If the company had not gone here, it would have gone to Nova Scotia
or New Brunswick, who were competing on the same basis that we were. What we put up front
- the $800,000 - was to cover start-up costs, recognizing the cost of putting in place
call centres, and the equipment costs that go with that. Mr. Speaker, there is no
breakdown of how that $800,000 was spent. It was $800,000 that was put in to attract a
company here that would see 160 people employed.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the
Minster of Finance and Treasury Board.
Minister, the Public Service Commission was established in 1973 as an
arm's-length body to set standards and procedures to be followed in recruitment and
selection in the Province's public sector. It was established to bring the public service
out of the Dark Ages, when hiring was done on political favours, whims, and what have you.
Will the minister confirm that over the past two years this government has moved away from
that and is actually sidestepping the Public Service Commission?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When the hon. member made the comment that the Public Service
Commission was brought in to bring the government hiring out of the Dark Ages, I thought
he was going to ask for its assistance in recruiting Tory candidates for the next
election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a
supplementary.
MR. J. BYRNE: Could you repeat the whole answer, in full, please?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a
supplementary.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, he confirmed in the Estimates Committee meetings they were
getting away from the Public Service Commission. I am not surprised that the government is
ashamed to be up front about this decision regarding getting away from the Public Service
Commission, because it is shameful.
I ask the minister: Why is the Public Service Commission substantially
reduced? Why is funding reduced for the Public Service Commission? And, is government
being dangerously liberal in its
interpretation of the legislation setting out the role of
the Public Service Commission?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker. Far from being dangerously liberal, we
are being admirably conservative in our approach.
The government has done very little hiring in the last several years.
One of the issues in Program Review was whether or not we needed it, and the issue was
raised in the Estimates here last year and the year before, whether or not we needed a
Public Service Commission the size that it was, which was in excess of thirty people.
We decided that with the extent of hiring that was occurring it was not
necessary. What we have done is, we have devolved to the departments the responsibility
for hiring, the responsibility for training, the responsibility for management of its
personnel, and we have asked the Public Service Commission - and required it - to perform
an audit function of the departments to ensure they are complying with the appropriate
legislated hiring standards of government. That is being done.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a
supplementary.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister confirmed in the Estimates Committee meetings, Mr.
Speaker, that the departments are doing the hiring now and not the Public Service
Commission. The Public Service Commission was never intended to be a rubber stamp to give
the false appearance of legitimacy to politically motivated decisions.
Will the minister admit that moving away from the Public Service
Commission, it leaves the public to wonder if people on the public payroll are hired or
promoted on the basis of factors other than merit, qualifications and experience?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. The hiring in government is
done at the departmental level under the supervision of the Public Service Commission. The
candidates are ranked according to merit, and the government is required and does in fact
hire the top ranked candidate.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the
Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
Can the minister confirm that the former Deputy Minister of Municipal
and Provincial Affairs, as well as Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. John Abbott,
has been rehired by his department?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
MR. A. REID: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a
supplementary.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister confirm that there are going to be some changes to his
department, and that they may well see the collapsing of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation into the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, so that Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing will be no more?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
MR. A. REID: It sounds like a good idea, Mr. Speaker.
No, I cannot confirm that, Mr. Speaker. The government has hired a new
Chief Executive Officer of the Housing Corporation; he has been assigned new duties at the
Housing Corporation. We were in the process of making some changes at the Housing
Corporation, as we have been doing the last year. He will continue the devolution mandate
that the previous chief executive officer had. I am not in any position to say to this
House or to the Province what he is going to do or what is going to happen at the end of
the day. We are in that process right now.
He started work on Tuesday morning and I am going to let him get his
feet wet for a few days at least. I guess he will come back to me, and ultimately to
Cabinet, and we will then make the decision on what is going to happen at Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a
supplementary.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Also, can the minister tell me today if there will be any loss of jobs
as a result of the restructuring of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and his department?
And is this the reason Mr. Abbott has been hired, to oversee the job losses, despite the
fact that the Minister of Finance promised in this particular Budget that there would be
no more job losses in the public service?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking me a
question that I cannot really answer. I just finished saying that he is doing a review,
the same basic review as the previous deputy minister, or chief executive officer, was
doing.
The commitment to this government is to try our utmost to save as many
jobs as we can when we make changes to departments. I do not know, at the end of the day,
what is going to happen to any of the departments. I do not know at this particular point
in time. I can only say to the hon. member, that we will do everything in our power to try
to maintain and preserve what jobs we can. I do not know what will happen to Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing at the end of the day, so I do not even know if there will be any
jobs displaced.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, final
supplementary.
MR. FRENCH: I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker: Of course, we
are not questioning the ability of the person who has been hired. That is not the issue
here. The issue is: Will there be job losses or not? Regardless of what spin the Premier
of the Province might want to put on it, that is not the case and that is not the idea of
the questions.
How soon does the minister expect to have some kind of a report from
the new Chairman of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in this regard?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the new chairman will
report to me in the next week or two. At that point in time, I then have the
responsibility to report to the Premier and the Cabinet. At that time, Cabinet will make a
decision, I guess, on the recommendations that the new executive officer will be putting
forth.
I cannot answer the hon. gentleman's question, Mr. Speaker. It is just
so hypothetical at this point in time that I am at a loss to be able to say anything,
other than I will let him know at the end of the day. When we decide all these things, I
will let him know. I cannot make any commitment or make any comment on job losses over
there at this particular point in time. There are no decisions made on that. I do not
think he has to worry about it at this particular point in time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Forest Resources and
Agrifoods, a couple of questions, Mr. Speaker, concerning watershed management.
I would like to ask the minister, if the Gander River Management Plan
has been approved by his department.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources sand
Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.
The Gander River Management Plan Study and Evaluation has been
submitted for the past year-and-a-half. The only thing that has been approved is the River
Specific License Pilot Project. Other science and rehabilitation work on the river has
been carried out over the past few years. That is the extent of what has been approved.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a
supplementary.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the minister, if the part of the Gander River
Management Plan, whereby this particular management group is allowed to charge an extra
fee for salmon anglers on that particular river, has been approved by his department.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and
Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it was announced almost a year ago,
that there would be a two-year pilot project on the Gander River, which would see a Gander
River Specific License implemented. That would allow for fishermen, interested anglers, to
fish the Gander and have this specific licence. That is the only river in the Province
where that project is under way. We are looking at the second year of that right now.
Again, that is the only river where we are doing it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a
supplementary.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that most, if not all, Minister, of the Gander River
Management Plan has been approved by your department.
Minister, in that particular management plan titled, It Can Be done
From Concept To Implementation, it clearly states on page 11, and I quote: That all major
habitat problems on the Gander River have been rectified over the past three years.
Minister, how can community watershed management be about river
enhancement if the Gander River Management Plan clearly states, that all major habitat
problems on this particular river have already been rectified?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and
Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, to correct the member: The management
plan that they submitted is over 150 pages. There are all kinds of suggestions in their
management plan, all kinds of recommendations, and it is based on consultation in the
Central Newfoundland Region.
We have looked at certain proposals, we have accepted certain ones, and
certain ones we have not. We are concerned, though, about the science in Newfoundland and
Labrador on our rivers and we are talking to them about increasing the science effort and
helping enhancement - to the credit of the (inaudible), there has been some enhancement on
the Gander River. They have done some tremendous work over the last two, three or four
years, and it has helped the Gander River.
We have a big concern, because last year there was supposed to be a
major run of salmon. DFO had planned for that with their science people and that didn't
occur. So there is still a lot more to know about the salmon resource of our Province, and
we hope that we will have more volunteers to help us do that.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, as you know, there is a lot of confusion
out there regarding watershed management on both sides of this issue; and I posed a
question to the Premier a few days ago.
I ask the minister, if he has thought about holding public forums to
allow those people to come forward in an organized way to put forward their concerns and
suggestions, and a chance for those people to advance their views and concerns.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and
Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have been dealing with those
concerns, ongoing, for the last couple of months. We have met with some of the groups. We
are meeting also with some more groups in the next couple of weeks. We are considering the
possibility of a further consultation process, and in due course we will indicate our
direction on that. We want to make sure that we clear up any misunderstanding about what
has been approved and what has not been improved.
We would ask the member for the Opposition to understand what the
answer is: That when it comes specifically to the Gander River project there is only part
of that proposal approved, and the rest is not. That is it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour. The Workers'
Compensation Review Committee presented its report at least a full year ago. It was made
public last fall.
Can the minister tell the House, and the injured workers of this
Province, when he is going to announce changes that will fulfil the recommendations and
significantly improve the lot of injured workers in this Province, and repair some of the
damage that was done as a result of legislation introduced after the Workers' Compensation
review of 1992?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, thank you.
I want to assure the hon. member that over the next little while we
will be bringing the recommendations that have been proposed to the House to the groups
concerned.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps he could clarify that. If what he is saying is, in fact, true,
I think the 1,500 people who have signed these cards, along with the other 9,000 or 10,000
who have already presented to the government and Premier, will be pleased to know - if the
minister is saying the recommendations will be brought to the House and implemented, I
would be very pleased to report that to them. Can the minister confirm that indeed is what
he said?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR LANGDON: We have evaluated the report, Mr. Speaker, and we have
diligently looked at the recommendations. Over the next few days I can say that we will
outline the recommendations that we have accepted from this report for the injured workers
and for the employers to see.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It appears he is pulling back his statement now.
Will he increase the compensation for injured workers to 85 per cent
after thirty-nine weeks? Will he reduce the CPP offset? Will he change the deeming
provision? Will he remove the top-up prohibition? Will he do the positive things the
report required to be done to re-balance the Workers' Compensation Commission between
injured workers and employers?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, if I were to answer that question I would
reveal all of the things we have done before I have a chance to talk to the stakeholders.
I will do that over the next few days, and obviously then you will be able to see what
recommendations we have brought forward.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Development and Rural
Renewal. Of course the anxiety is continuing to build, especially in rural parts of
Newfoundland, as we wait and speculate on what is going to happen with the news TAGS
program, specifically for the 2,000 people who have come off recently, and people who have
been coming off in the last little while.
I would like to ask the minister: Depending on what happens with this
program, which we will find out, hopefully, in the next couple of weeks, what is your
department doing to prepare in case there is an inadequate response from Ottawa? What is
the provincial government ready to do?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural
Renewal.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have to give the hon. gentleman the same
answer that I gave to his friend from Bonavista South some two or three weeks ago, when he
asked the same question. I am not prepared, at this point in time, to hold up my hands to
the federal government and say: Hey, we are going to solve your problems for you. But rest
assured, we will do everything to ensure that the people who are coming off TAGS get their
just rewards, which is a living hopefully.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker: With all due
respect, people are getting more anxious everyday because there are more people going to
be looking for those few jobs that are going to be around, especially for the spring of
the year.
I will say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs then:
Some project money was used this fall which was put to some good use in some communities.
It is certainly not long term, but at the same time it is very useful in a lot of
communities for the short term, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of people made very good use of
those projects.
I would like to ask the minister: What does he see forthcoming for this
spring, especially for people coming off TAGS and everybody else who are looking for
money?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, for one, I am hoping and praying - and I
am serious when I say praying - that the federal government comes up with a program to
replace the TAGS program or at least continue the TAGS program.
MR. EFFORD: They must.
MR. A. REID: I am not even going to accept the fact that they are
not going to do it. I can only say that they will do it. I know in my heart and soul they
will do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. A. REID: Therefore, I don't know if there is a need for me to
answer the question, other than to say -
MR. EFFORD: I wouldn't answer it.
MR. A. REID: I say to the hon. member, thank you very much for
congratulating this side and the government for coming up with the creative program that
we did come up with to provide a few people with a few weeks of work. I don't have
anything this year in my budget to continue that but I am sure, as the year goes on and if
the government on this side can find a few extra dollars to put into a new program, I can
assure the member that he will get his share the same as everybody else in the House. We
will, hopefully, if we need to and we have the money to do it, be able to provide some
needed work for some people out there. But I hope that none of the people that are on TAGS
today are going to be in that situation. I hope it is not TAGS people.
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act."
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the
following resolution:
WHEREAS May is Multiply Sclerosis Awareness Month across Atlantic
Canada and 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the MS movement in Canada; and
WHEREAS MS is the most common disease of the central nervous system
affecting young adults in Canada today; and
WHEREAS it is roughly estimated that one in every 500 Atlantic
Canadians and their families is affected by this devastating and unpredictable disease;
and
WHEREAS the Atlantic Division of the MS Society of Canada is a `not for
profit' organization committed to achieving its mission of being a leader in finding a
cure for MS and enabling people affected by MS to enhance their quality of life;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that all members of this House acknowledge and
support the Atlantic Division of the MS Society of Canada for their dedicated efforts in
finding a cure for MS and improving the quality of life for those who face the challenges
have been clinically proven to significantly improve the quality of life for many
individuals with Multiply Sclerosis.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act". (Bill No. 24)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Provide For Participation By The
Province In An Intergovernmental Joint Purchasing Agreement And To Repeal The Provincial
Preference Act."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, having just heard the resolution laid
down by the Opposition House Leader on the question of Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month
and the clauses that are contained therein, I think I can say on behalf of this side of
the House that we are prepared if, Mr. Speaker, you deem it appropriate and consent of the
House is given, to give immediate passage to this resolution as an expression of the will
of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly don't have any problem with that. I think it would
certainly be appropriate. The more expeditiously we can get the approval of the House here
on this and move forward to achieving some of the particular things we are resolved to do,
the better.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see that both sides of the House are prepared to deal with
this right now. In fact, it was my suggestion that we deal with this because it seems to
me that we should, on an occasion such as this, where the efforts of this organization to
raise awareness about Multiple Sclerosis, and the importance of this disease, and the
debilitating nature of the disease that affects so many people, that we approve the
resolution right now. I would support its unanimous passage.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on this side, we would ask that this
resolution be recorded as being unanimously approved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
So it is not necessary then for the Chair, at this point in time, to
put the resolution? Do you want to do that or just -
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) unanimous approval.
MR. SPEAKER: Okay.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: No, that is fine, as long as it is recorded.
On motion, resolution unanimously adopted.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the Catholic Women's
League of Canada, St. Thomas of Villanova Parish, in the Topsail district. This particular
petition, Mr. Speaker, expresses displeasure with the recent decision to reduce welfare
payments to families by the amount given through the Child Tax Benefit, and is signed by
seventeen residents of my district. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read it into the record:
This petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned members
of the Catholic Women's League of Canada, Topsail district, in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:
We, the undersigned members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada,
of Topsail district, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of
Human Resources and Employment to review the recent decision to reduce funding to
recipients by the amount of the Child Tax Benefit.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these particular residents are expressing their
concerns. My colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, along with fellow
ministers across the country, designed the National Child Benefit to have three goals, Mr.
Speaker. One was to help ensure an effective response in preventing and reducing child
poverty; to promote attachment to the workforce, resulting in fewer families having to
rely on social assistance; and to reduce the overlap and duplication.
Mr. Speaker, the fund that this group is concerned about is a
redirection of provincial social assistance funds freed up by the increase in Child Tax
Benefits, a corresponding decrease in provincial assistance related to children for basic
needs. This redirection goes into additional benefit services for all low-income families,
Mr. Speaker. Let me point out that this arrangement will not result in any income loss for
social assistance families because the amount of money they are getting under social
assistance would now appear under Canada Child Benefit cheques.
This arrangement increases the benefits available to low-income
families to equal more closely the level available to clients of social assistance. It
also gives the Province more financial flexibility to design additional benefits or
services to assist low-income families and their children. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker,
that our government is committed to helping the underprivileged in our society and this
will not change.
This change will not see a decrease in funding for those on social
assistance, but rather a different source of funding. It is a long-term plan, Mr. Speaker,
which will reduce child poverty by providing families with incentives to move from social
assistance to the workforce and I, as the Member for Topsail, applaud the Catholic Women's
League for their concern for those on social assistance and I am pleased to present this
petition on their behalf.
I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, to the members of this House and our
constituents, that the goal of eliminating child poverty is something for which we all
strive, and this new National Child Benefit is a move in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult when you sit in government and you
have a multitude of problems that you have to deal with and decisions have to be made.
When the Minister of Human Resources and Employment met with her colleagues across the
country and they put together this particular program, it was in agreement that this would
provide to those in most need an opportunity to better themselves.
I can understand the resistance to change. There are people who do not
want to change. We in this Province have carried on the same program probably, I think,
since 1949, and it is time to make that change, to try and make a difference to those who
need it most.
What I am asking today, on behalf of the Catholic Women's League in my
district, is that this government, and the Minister of Human Resources and Employment,
review the program they have put forth, and if there is a possibility that they can make
adjustments to the program, or whatever they see fit, that we can make the lives of those
people more productive, and especially the children. All of us will agree that it is the
children who we have to foster and make sure they get the right nutritional foods, the
right programs, so that we can change the direction of where we are going.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for your time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this. Perhaps I could
see the petition. I was listening to the member speak on the petition, and the words that
I heard don't seem to be supported by the comments of the minister, that: ...the
undersigned members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada, of Topsail district, hereby
petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of Human Resources and Employment
to review the recent decision to reduce funding to recipients by the amount of the Child
Tax Benefit.
Mr. Speaker, what this member has said is that the government is not
reducing the payments to anybody in this Province.
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, there are very clear
rules laid out for the presentation of and the speaking to petitions in this House. One of
the rules is that the petition not be debated, and that there not be a debate between
members, that we confine ourselves to the subject matter of the petition and whether
indeed you support the petition yourself. I would ask the Speaker to see if the hon.
gentleman is relevant to this petition.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the hon. member is correct. Every member offering
a petition to the House of Assembly shall confine himself or herself to the statements of
the parties from who it is comes, the number of signatures attached to it, and the
material allegation it contains. The petitions are not to be debated in the House.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Let me confine myself to the words of the Catholic
Women's League, Mr. Speaker: We, as members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada, and
as concerned Canadian citizens, would like to express our displeasure at the provincial
decision to reduce their welfare payments to families by the amount given through the
Child Tax Benefit. This is discrimination and gives no benefit to families who could
probably use it the most. As our government representative, we request that something be
done to end this unfair practice.
That was the petition from the Catholic Women's League. What we have
here is another one with Ralph Wiseman's signature on it, and Rick Woodford, and Wally
Andersen signed a petition to the House of Assembly, and this petition says something
different. This is not the Catholic Women's League; these are three members of this House.
It is called: The petition of the undersigned members of the Catholic Women's League of
Canada. The Member for Topsail, the Member for Torngat Mountains, and the Member for
Humber Valley are members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada petitioning this House.
I am confining myself to the words of the petition, Mr. Speaker, and to
the names and the signatures on it. What is being perpetrated here is a fraud!
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that what
he should do, if he followed the right procedures of this House, rather than get off in a
fit of pique in the first place, the petition should have come from the member to the
Table, and then he should have gotten it from the Table.
In the second place, let me just say to the hon. gentlemen that if he
sees something wrong with the petition then he should stand up and point out to Your
Honour that there is something wrong with this petition, and ask for a ruling from the
Chair. He is not to make rulings in this House.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that by
reading out three names on that petition, and then using the word `fraud', he has done
something in this House which he is not allowed to do, and that is to accuse members of
this House of committing a fraud.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, again the Chair was about to intervene and tell
the hon. member that he is out of order in terms of the language that he is using and I
ask him to withdraw that statement.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any language that was
unparliamentary, and I would raise a point of order with respect to the petition.
I thank the Government House Leader for his advice as to how to handle
this matter. I would ask the Chair to examine this petition and examine whether or not
members of this House can present themselves - male members of this House can present
themselves - as members of the Catholic Women's League and present an unsigned petition to
the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland, unsigned by the member presenting
it, and, Mr. Speaker, a petition of the Catholic Women's League of Canada which is not
signed by the member -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: - and obviously not supported by the member, being
presented to this House. Whether this, in fact, is a breach of the rules of this House by
the hon. member - a deliberate breach of the rules of this House -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: - and a deliberate breach of the privileges of members
of this House who are making this kind of presentation to the House of Assembly.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Are you speaking to the point of order that the hon. member is raising?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair would just like to deal with the point of order that the hon.
member has raised and then I will hear what the hon. Government House Leader has to say.
I understand that the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi has
raised a point of order, that he wants the Chair to look at the petition to see if it is
in order. The Chair will take that point under advisement, look at it and report back to
the House.
MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail, on a point of order.
MR. WISEMAN: To that point of order, my understanding was that the
petition had to be worded in a proper way. So all I -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WISEMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is all that was done. If the
wording of that petition was changed... It was never this member's intention to change it.
I just assumed it was put into proper format and I presented it here in the House.
If the member opposite wants to raise the issue to try to get at me for
some reason, for trying to deny him leave today, that is up to him, Mr. Speaker. If I have
in some way done something that does not appear to be right then I apologize, because it
was never my intention. I came here today and rose in my place to present a petition on
behalf of my constituents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: What I have said, Mr. Speaker, is very clear. If the
hon. member wants to make something out of it, then so be it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has ruled that it is taking the point raised by the member
under advisement and will report back to the House.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would also ask Your Honour to take into
account as to whether indeed the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the
NDP Party, has been completely out of order here, and whether indeed he had abused the
privileges of a member of this House by standing in his place and accusing the member of
deliberately distorting a petition. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of act
and the kind of speech which is not permitted in this House and which indeed, if allowed
to go on, will impede members from carrying out their duties in this House.
One of the prime privileges that a member enjoys in this Legislature is
the ability to present the views of his constituents and other people. If he is going to
be accused of deliberately distorting petitions then I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that
his privileges are being abused and the hon. gentleman should be asked to withdraw or be
named.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Are you speaking to the point of
order?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi raised an interesting point. I
am looking at a copy of a petition, as to the authenticity of it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is the hon. member speaking to the point of order raised by the
Government House Leader?
MR. TULK: Point of privilege.
MR. SPEAKER: Point of privilege, okay.
MR. SULLIVAN: The Government House Leader asked that the Speaker
take under consideration... I would like to ask him, and I stand on a point of privilege
to ask him, to take under consideration another particular item, Mr. Speaker. The
particular item is the constitutionality or authority of members to present a petition in
this House, purporting to be members of a Catholic Women's League in Topsail district,
when the signatories to that petition are neither, Mr. Speaker, when some of the
signatories are neither members of the district nor members of that league, if that is
within the confines of this House and the ability of this House to do that. That - the
Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi used the word, I think - perpetrates a fraud.
If I sign as a member of another district and a member of an
organization of which I am not part of, is that an authentic petition that was raised here
in the House? I would like to ask the member -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I believe the Chair has taken that question that the hon. member is
raising under advisement. It is not a new point of order.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of
privilege raised by the Government House Leader.
Mr. Speaker, what I have asked Your Honour to rule on, after examining
the documentation that should be in the hands of the officers of the Table, is whether or
not a petition from the Catholic Women's League, which says one thing, was presented to
this House as a petition which says another thing, signed by three members of this House.
The question is whether or not - I asked Your Honour to rule on this - the member has
deliberately distorted that position and himself abused -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: - the privileges of members of this House by presenting
inaccurate material to the House.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member, I believe, was speaking to the point of privilege that
you raised earlier? Do you want to comment on that as well?
MR. TULK: I want to point out to Your Honour the difference between
what Your Honour originally committed himself to do, which was to look at this petition
and indeed see if the petition was in order, but that is not the question in my point of
privilege. The question in my point of privilege is another member standing in this House
and using the word, `deliberately' distorted. I use the word deliberately, not distorted.
If the petition is distorted that is one thing, but to say that a member of this House
`deliberately' distorted a petition is unparliamentary unless the hon. gentleman can offer
the proof that indeed it was deliberate.
Mr. Speaker, I would contend that it was not deliberate and that the
hon. gentleman should be asked to not impugn upon the morals or the character of people of
this House in that fashion. He has to either withdraw it or be named, in my opinion.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, deliberately or otherwise, the Government
House Leader is distorting what I said, because what I asked Your Honour rule on - the
facts are going to speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour has not seen the
documentation. The Table has just seen them. We have two separate petitions, one of which
comes from the Catholic Women's League, and another which comes from people - I don't know
whether they are Catholic. They don't appear to me to be women, Mr. Speaker. They were
sworn in as members of the House and I don't know if they are members of the organization.
I know they are members of this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am asking Your Honour to examine the facts and make
a ruling as to whether or not the hon. member has deliberately distorted this petition and
abused the privilege of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: Now if I can't ask Your Honour to make such a ruling
-if the petition is in order, I also want to speak to it, Mr. Speaker. I don't think this
is something that we can put off until tomorrow or the next day.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair -
MR. HARRIS: I would like to speak to that petition if the petition
is in order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair said it would take the point raised by the hon. member under
advisement and will report back to the House.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I take it that you are also going to take my
point of privilege -
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Chair has already indicated the point of
privilege.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, on the point of order.
MR. FRENCH: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, as well, if he would make a
ruling as to whether we have one petition presented or are there two? I am just curious. I
don't know if there is one or two. I wish to speak on the petition, in support of the
petition, but I don't know if we have one or if we have two.
MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, seeing as the petition is still the item
of business before this House and there is still the opportunity, I think - only the
speaker's time would have run out on the clock. The opportunity for a third speaker - if
there is a petition or two before the House, there would be time allocated that we could
speak on whether it is one or two.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Unless it is determined whether we have one or two,
how do we know what we can speak on?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member who wishes to speak would not be allowed to speak if
there was one or two petitions, because only one member from the opposite side can speak
to a petition.
MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi,on a
point of order.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rose to speak to the petition, and it
wasn't until I saw the petition that I was brought about, by looking at the petition, to
raise a point of order. Mr. Speaker, if the petition is valid I would like to speak on it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member was speaking on the petition when he was interrupted, I
believe, and then he raised the point of order afterwards. So the hon. member's time has
expired.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2. I would move that the House
resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Consolidated Fund Services,
Legislature and Executive Council.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole,
Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!
Order No. 2.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in my place once again on this Budget, I suppose, and the
Estimates regarding the Executive Council.
I had been asking the minister in this House of Assembly some questions
the other day with respect to the Executive Council. One of the topics that I hit on, of
course, was the Voisey's Bay project, wondering where the Voisey's Bay project was going,
if it was going. I wonder if we are going to get a smelter in Argentia. These are the
types of questions I was referring to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, with
respect to the Voisey's Bay project and the Executive Council.
There is some $504,000 budgeted this year for that project, of course,
and we know now there have been some delays in the project. I suppose people in the
Argentia area felt they would be well on their way now with the start-up of their smelter.
I believe, actually, pretty well every district in the election two years ago campaigned
on getting that smelter. The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, I would say, got
elected on that promise of the smelter. It's not down there yet, not even started, and
they are talking about delaying it.
My question is: I wonder will it ever come to the Island of
Newfoundland and Labrador? I sincerely hope so. As I said, the Voisey's Bay project is a
great project and we are looking forward to great things from that project for the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I asked the minister: What about the taxation
regime and the royalty regime and what have you? When is that going to be put in place,
when do we expect to see that? The minister didn't really give an answer to that question.
It's something we have been asking in this House of Assembly for some two or three years
now.
The previous premier was planning on bringing that in in the fall of
1995, the royalty regime, and the changes to the taxation and the royalty regime for
Voisey's Bay; the mineral tax act. We haven't seen it yet. I expect it is before Cabinet.
I don't know when it is going to be coming to the Province or what form it is going to
take. Is there going to be taxation on the amount of mineral that comes out of the ground,
the tonnage? Will it be after the profits are made in the company, Mr. Chairman? Will the
profits be taxed on the companies that are doing the work there? We really did not get any
answers on that. We see, as I said earlier, $504,600 to be budgeted on the Voisey's Bay
project.
I see the minister is in his chair paying attention, taking the
pressure off the Government House Leader. He is taking the pressure off and I am sure the
Minister of Development and Rural Renewal is quite relieved to see the Minister of Finance
in his chair. There is no doubt about that.
Anyway, I say to the Minister of Finance: I have asked you a number of
questions and while I have you here today, when you gave me the answers with respect to
the Public Service Commission - I know we are on Executive Council, and I would imagine
there has to be some relevancy here. It is all part of the Budget, I suppose, Mr.
Chairman, and I know there is some latitude given, when we are talking about the Budget in
the House of Assembly.
In the Estimates Committee, the Minister of Finance quite clearly
stated to me and his assistants that were here, that the department and this
administration has gotten away from the Public Service Commission. The role is reduced and
the hiring is done through the departments. He was trying to rationalize and explain to me
why?
Now, I was getting to that today in the House of Assembly, Mr.
Chairman, but the minister really did not admit to that. He really did not admit to it. It
is a concern for me, Mr. Chairman, and it is a concern for a lot of people in this
Province. Are we now hiring in the Civil Service and promoting? Is it going to be based on
education, experience and qualifications, Mr. Chairman? Or is it going to be based on
political favours, political whims, nepotism, or anything like that?
MR. EFFORD: What is wrong with that?
MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture says: What
is wrong with that? That will tell you, Mr. Chairman, the level of that man's
responsibility to the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
There was a system put in place back in 1973, by a Tory Administration,
Mr. Chairman, to be fair and to take the civil servants out of the dark ages, and I stated
it in my questions. Of course, now we have a situation where the Civil Service - and I am
only asking the general question because it has been asked of me. How are these people
being employed? What criteria is been used, Mr. Chairman? It is throughout government, all
throughout government departments, corporations and what have you.
So I say to the minister: That is something that he could address and
be a bit more elaborate in his answers, when he gets up to speak on this, than he was
today in the House of Assembly when I asked specific questions? Now, the specific
questions, of course, Mr. Chairman - I am not sure if I have them here before me now or
not. Oh, yes, here they are. He will not admit that they are backing away from the Public
Service Commission in the House of Assembly, Mr. Chairman, and they are backing away.
There is no doubt in my mind, and everybody knows it. Talk to the civil servants and they
will tell you that.
I also asked him, basically: What is wrong with the system that is in
place today? Well, I cannot say today, because the proper system is being changed, Mr.
Chairman, and the system that was in place before they decided to make the changes two
years ago - what was wrong with that system? It was working find. People would be
interviewed and recommendations made to the minister. The minister still had some latitude
in who he hired, or who he wanted to put in the position, because a recommendation of
three people was made to him. So he still had some latitude.
I refer, Mr. Chairman, to the public enquiry into allegations of
irregulars associated with the Public Service competition, done by Justice Geoffrey Steele
in May, 1992. In that, he made some specific comments. He said: I adopt without
reservation the foregoing statements. Here it is. He says: It is manifest that any
conduct, act or activity by any person that circumvents, debases or invalidates the merit
principle in any matter, thereby subverts the selection process of the Public Service
Commission, its mandate and its statute.
So we if are not hiring through the Public Service Commission, but
going through the departments instead of the Public Service Commission, we are basically
not following proper procedure, and a fair procedure to the people who apply, Mr.
Chairman. Even if they do hire the best candidate through the departments, the perception
is out there that they are hiring people based on factors other than merit, experience and
qualifications.
That is what I was getting at today, when I spoke to the minister and
asked him questions in the House and he did not respond. That ultimately gets back to the
Budget, Mr. Chairman, and how much money we pay for certain people in the civil service.
Again, if we get away from the Public Service Commission, we may end up getting away from
the proper amounts of money to be paid for services rendered in the civil service. So, if
we are getting away from the Public Service Commission, it will have far-reaching effects,
not necessarily only on the person who was done out of a job because they did not follow
proper procedures, but, Mr. Chairman, on how much money we would pay.
Mr. Chairman, I am going back to the Estimates here. This government
had many, many announcements, I would say, before the Budget came down and they put out
this Budget Highlights 1998. One of the things that they have talked about over the
years, of course, is that there were no cuts; it was a balanced Budget last year, which
really, in actual fact, it was not. They still have the Slush Fund of $30 million, Mr.
Chairman. I think they referred to it in the Budget as having a $10 million deficit this
year but in actual fact they have a $20 million surplus.
It says: "Living Within Our Means."
"Government is on track with its three year financial plan which
will be balanced by 1999-2000." Now, Mr. Chairman, I referred to the Budget before
and the Estimates, and I have a copy of the Estimates right here. Here we are. How many
pages? Let me see, Mr. Chairman; 255 pages of Estimates for a Budget for this year alone,
for 1998/99. In their Budget Highlights, they refer to a three-year Budget plan, three
pages versus 255. So, Mr. Chairman, what kind of a three-year Budget did they really,
really pass or adopt a few years ago with Cabinet? Because it certainly never came to the
House of Assembly to be approved. It would not be approved, Mr. Chairman, if they brought
a three-page Budget to this House of Assembly. I would say members on the government side
of the House would even have to say no to a three-page document for a Budget for three
years, when one year is almost 300 pages, Mr. Chairman. So that is one factor by which
certain people in the public would be led astray, when they hear of a three-year financial
plan.
Also, it says here: "Government continues to be prudent in its
financial management and accordingly, is providing for a $30 million contingency reserve
again this year." I already commented on that, Mr. Chairman, whereby it actually
gives the government a $20 million surplus, not a $10 million deficit. So in actual fact,
they are talking about balancing the Budget in 1999-2000, when they could have balanced it
last year, Mr. Chairman. So they are padding the Budget on that side of the House to make
things look rosy and hunky-dory for a year or so down the road, when the Premier is likely
to call an election. I do not know if I am going to see another Budget in this House of
Assembly, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, before another election; because in the Budget there
are some structural problems, structural deficiencies.
I have a lot to say on the Budget, Mr. Chairman, but I am going to sit
down now for a couple of minutes and get back up after one of my colleagues on this side
of the House continues with the legitimate concerns on this side of the House, and that
the people of this Province have.
There is one thing that always boils my blood, Mr. Chairman, when I
read the Budget. Listen to this now, Mr. Chairman. There are no tax increases in this
Budget. That is like the Premier saying there will be no layoffs this year; the same
thing, the same comparison could be made. There are no tax increases! Yet, in the past
number of budgets - the year before all we saw were three pages of licences, taxes,
permits and increases of all sorts. Last year there were six pages of licence, fees and
permit increases, Mr. Chairman. That is where they are taking it out of the pockets of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They can't survive, they can't take it any more.
MR. BARRETT: If you don't have a car, you don't pay for it.
MR. J. BYRNE: What a statement! If you don't have a car you don't
pay for it. That is like saying, if you don't have food, you don't pay for it. That is
something to say. What a statement to make by a Member of the House of Assembly. Can you
believe it?
MR. SULLIVAN: Jack, I know people who are paying off cars now who
don't have them anymore, but they are still paying them off.
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.
Mr. Chairman, I can't believe my ears. Here we are in the House of
Assembly, the Legislature for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have the
Member for Bellevue making the statement: If you don't have a car, you don't pay for it.
It's like saying, if you don't have food, you don't pay for it. So that's alright, let the
people starve to death. My God, you must be related to Marie Antoinette or someone. You
know, let them eat cake. It's shocking!
Anyway, I have to sit down and let my throat rest for a few minutes and
let one of the members from my side get up and say a few words.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. You are going to hear
something else more sensible again. I can't believe the Member for Bellevue would make a
statement like that. That made about as much sense now as the member for Mississauga who
came up to the microphone, when we were presenting for TAGS in Ottawa, and said: We have
100,000 jobs in Toronto. Tell them all to come up here. That is about as sensible as that.
That is what I say to the Member for Bellevue.
Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to get up and comment about first today was
- hopefully I could have gotten to my third question today. I couldn't believe how the
Ministers of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Development and Rural Renewal responded to the
second question. I never even got to the third question. I tell the Ministers of
Development and Rural Renewal and Fisheries and Aquaculture that the questions I asked
today were questions that I got in phone calls from other districts across the way. People
are asking me to start asking that question over and over until we get a straight answer.
Very simply put, it is as simple as this - and the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture, if he is being honest, will stand and say the same thing - if
we are trusting Ottawa, if we are so confident Ottawa is going to bring down an adequate
post-TAGS package for this Province, we might be whistling Dixie. Because the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture knows full well that the attitude of that crowd in Ottawa
towards this Province, when it comes to the post-TAGS, when it comes to the seal industry,
is out to lunch. There is no other way to say it.
After the meetings I have attended up there and the people I have
talked to, even the media, the mentality of Ottawa and how they relate to this Province,
I'm telling you what, the people of this Province, if they could only travel to Ottawa to
get in front of those people up there who speak like that, the message would be loud and
clear.
My questions today for the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal
that he laughed off, and so did the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, are a reality
in this Province. The reality is this: That people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador
don't trust and don't have the confidence in the group in Ottawa to make sure we have an
adequate program forthcoming. That is what is so serious about this, and that is what is
really starting to upset people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why the
anxiety is starting to build, Mr. Chairman.
I say to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, I spoke to a
gentleman from his district the other day, who is on his way back to Placentia for the
third time since the smelter was announced. This is a young man, married with two
children. The first time he came back when he heard all the announcements, he went down in
Placentia, he was telling me, and there were parties. They called them smelter parties.
They were starting to have a party, every second house, that there was a smelter announced
for the area. That is what happened. They all came back from Toronto. I don't know what
numbers. He couldn't give me exact numbers, of course, but he could say that quite a
number of them who were in the Scarborough area, Fort McMurray, any of those areas,
started to call each other and Internet and everything else, he said, and they started to
say: Let's go home, the smelter's announced.
Mr. Chairman, for this particular gentleman it's his third trip home.
He will be home this week to Placentia to have another shot at it. He was asking me what
did I think of it, when it was going to happen. I could only tell him: Your guess is as
good as mine. Because I'm going to tell you now, since that smelter announcement we don't
know where Voisey's Bay is. We don't know what the end result is going to be.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I spent time with Mr. Gendron some
three and a half weeks ago now, with our leader and some of our staff, to get a full
presentation on what is really happening in Voisey's Bay, what is happening with the
smelter proposed for Argentia. They don't know. That is what they say, that they don't
know. The truth is they know very well that their intentions are to go in and mine that
ovoid, to do it as quickly as possible, make the billions of dollars profit and get out of
this Province. Their intention is not for a nickel smelter, it is not for a copper
smelter. The same mistake over and over again in this Province, Mr. Chairman. We have the
resource in front of us, one of the richest nickel finds in the world; I think it is the
second largest nickel find in the world. We are ready to benefit from secondary processing
in this Province and the truth is, that this company does not plan to build a smelter of
any kind.
Mr. Chairman, secondly, I am not convinced yet that there should not be
a copper smelter in this Province. I understand there are some discussions going on now
and some work being done for the provincial government on behalf of Mr. Virbiski and they
are considering it. I remember, from the very first day I raised that issue in this House
of Assembly, long before anybody else raised it outside, about a copper smelter, I
premised my whole argument on logic. Not that I am any expert in the mining industry, it
was on logic. I asked the then Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Gibbons: How much copper
do we need here in this Province in order for us to have a copper smelter? He told me how
much. I think he said 100,000 tons at the time, per year.
Then my next question was: How much copper do we have in Voisey's Bay?
He did not know. No, my second question was: Should we have a copper smelter here? He said
no. My third question was: How much do we have in Voisey's Bay? He said: We don't know how
much copper we have. So, Mr. Chairman, just logic will follow that if he does not know how
much copper we have, how can you say we do not have enough for a smelter? So, Mr.
Chairman, it is another -
MR. SULLIVAN: Inco told him.
MR. SHELLEY: Inco must have. Somebody was telling him, Mr.
Chairman. Inco told him, wasn't it? People in Newfoundland and Labrador were telling him,
because, Mr. Chairman, the dye was cast on this whole deal a long time ago. We hope that
at the end of the day a nickel smelter, copper smelter or whatever can be done in this
Province, is done here in this Province. That is what we all have to make sure of. That is
why we have to go deeper than we have ever gone before and address that.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the questions. The third
question of course that I had planned to ask today, when we ran out of time, was: Right
now, today, to date, this spring - because spring is when people start calling all their
members because their unemployment is starting to run out. It is two-fold this year
because their unemployment is running out and, Mr. Chairman, there are 2,000 more people
coming off TAGS in the near future. There are thousands who came off already.
Mr. Chairman, what we have to remember is that besides the fact that
they will not have an income, those thousands of people now are going to be looking for
the few skimpy jobs that are around that everybody else is looking for; the displaced
loggers, the people who are never talked about, these people who are displaced by the
harvesters. Where are they going to get the work? Now they have more competition, 2,000
more people coming off TAGS who are going after the few jobs that are there.
I am telling you, I told the minister before, and I am serving notice
again this spring, that the time is critical. I believe there is a ticking time bomb in
rural Newfoundland right now saying: We want to see something that is tangible, something
that is real, something that you are going to be able to sink your teeth into. The reason
why I ask the questions today, Mr. Chairman, of the Minister of Development and Rural
Renewal and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, is because this spring is
going to be a critical time to address that problem when you have almost like a
bottleneck. People crowding into that bottleneck, Mr. Chairman, are going to say: I need
to get to work. The only resort left, if we don't address that problem, is welfare. We are
going to see tens of thousands of people turn to welfare.
The man from Mississauga who walked up to the microphone and said that
we should send all Newfoundlanders up to Toronto, Mr. Chairman, maybe he should come down
and talk to the man I talked to from Placentia who is forty-seven years old, has four kids
and owns his own home. Tell him that he should pack up a bus, put everything in it and go
to Toronto and look for a job. They are not real.
Ottawa is disconnected from this Province as far as I'm concerned, Mr.
Chairman, with the mentality that we have seen coming out of Ottawa, not only by the
politicians but the media. I was asked questions like: Oh, what are you here for now? What
do you want passed out to you now? That is what they were saying. People in this Province
have to remember that $235 million out of the economy of this Province, that is one
negative impact. That is bad enough. That is money not spent in the stores, the gas
stations, the hotels and the grocery stores. Mr. Chairman, the double-whammy that we are
going to see here, besides the negative impact of less money coming into the Province, is
that thousands of people are going to be going out in competition for the few jobs that
are there now for displaced loggers, displaced miners, all those people there who have not
had compensation. So that is what the fearful thing is in this Province.
So the Province should be ready - and that is why I put the question to
the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal today. Is he just saying: No, I am really
confident that Ottawa is going to save us this time, that it is going to be adequate?
Well, Mr. Chairman, if the minister of this Province is so confident of that then I am
not, and I don't think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are, because that problem
will have to be addressed and it is not years down the road. We are talking days, weeks
and months that those people are going to be looking for something there.
I will go back to the point I raised a little bit earlier, the people
in Placentia and their hopes built up on what was going to happen and then not
materializing. That is where we have to address the real situation that is in rural
Newfoundland. There is no way you can hide from statistics that are factual, the fact that
some 11,000 people left this Province last year.
Our best resource - never mind the nickel in Voisey's Bay, the oil in
Hibernia, and all those resources, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing more important than the
resource of our young people in this Province, and what they can contribute to us, if they
had a chance to do something.
So, Mr. Chairman, there is one other point I wanted to raise today,
before I go on. It was raised in Questions in the House the other day. Statistics, again,
Mr. Chairman: Over 1,200 people in this Province last year declared personal bankruptcy.
They added it up and found out there was no way they could handle their bills. With the
economic downturn and with the problems with jobs in the Province, they could not handle
it, so they had to file for bankruptcy. It was not something they wanted to do, and I say,
Mr. Chairman, it is the second last resort. It is not the last resort because the last
resort, after that, is welfare. The second last resort is bankruptcy.
The truth, Mr. Chairman, is, if you know a lot about bankruptcy, it is
not so bad if you have to do it. The fact is, it gives you a chance to start over again.
Well, to add to that statistic, out of 1,200 people who went bankrupt last year, at least
400 of those were students, young people coming out of university and colleges with debt
loads they could not control and had to bow to their dignity and go in and file for
personal bankruptcy.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we had the Premier of the Province, the Leader of
the Province, standing in the House this week, and saying he did not know that the rules
were changed by the federal government. He did not know that this negative impact - and
the rule is this: Up to June of this year, a student would have to wait for two years,
once they graduated, before they could go and file for bankruptcy, if they had to do it.
God forbid! I hope they would not, but the reality is they do have to do it some times.
But now, Mr. Chairman, as of June, with this great millennium fund - the Premier says he
knows nothing about - students will have to wait for ten years before they can file for
bankruptcy.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not know how many members know that statistic
or realize it, but that is a fact, that up until June of this year, with the new
millennium fund, students who come out of university or colleges anywhere, would have to
wait two years before they file for bankruptcy. As of June they will have to wait ten
years.
Mr. Chairman, what is going to be their alternative? They are going to
end up, educated students, with $30 thousand and $40 thousand debt, going to the welfare
office. That is what is going to happen to our young people of this Province. They will
get enough money together, they will get a bus ticket or a plane ticket, or hitch-hike,
and get out of this Province. That is what they are telling me, Mr. Chairman. These are
things that are happening in the Province that the Premier did not know anything about. So
I wonder who else knows about it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. SULLIVAN: He is not here enough.
MR. SHELLEY: They are not here, Mr. Chairman, they are not
connected. The focus is not on this Province, it is elsewhere. It is all over the place.
People are getting sick and tired of a major pie-in-the-sky again. They are not happy.
They have to see something that is tangible.
We have to do something to address the student debt and the
demoralization of the students in this Province who have given up on their roots. They
have given up on a way of life - that is the saddest part of this whole scenario, Mr.
Chairman - that they have given up on their roots and their way of living here. They are
going to Ontario, they are settling in, and saying: I have given up on my Province. That
is a real shame, Mr. Chairman!
That is what we have to address. It is the most critical issue facing
Newfoundland and Labrador in the next six months. It is no good to say it is a year or two
years away; it is soon, it is within months.
Imagine, I talked to two students in my office last week, who sat there
and said that they have no intentions of staying in Newfoundland; not even a thought. Not
even a thought, Mr. Chairman, that they are going to stay in this Province. Neither one of
them are looking to you and saying: I think I have a good job coming up, I think I am
going to be here in this Province for awhile. They just look at it like it is a forgone
conclusion. Yes, I am going to graduate, and if I have enough money for a one-way ticket -
I am trying to get a Canada 3000 ticket - I am going to Fort McMurray.
It is not even a discussion anymore, whether they can stay or not. They
are looking at their parents, their families and the places they have been raised - Mr.
Chairman, even if they could stay in the urban parts of Newfoundland, St. John's, Corner
Brook, or Gander, the bigger places, but they do not have that option anymore. No, the
only option is one: Give up on your Province and go elsewhere. That is the saddest
situation this Province has ever encountered.
We are heading into a new millennium. When other parts of the world are
getting ready to take off in space industry and all kinds of other technologies that are
going on, our students are looking at us and saying: Well we have our education, which
taxpayers' dollars went towards, their education and our institutions here, and all they
are thinking is: Good-bye, I am gone. I would love to stay but I am out of here; the same
as this young gentleman I spoke to from Placentia just a couple of days ago. He said he is
going to come back and try again because he has to. It is his third attempt back since the
smelter was announced. So we have to see something tangible, something that is real, and
we have to address the problem of out-migration and student debt so we can keep some of
these people in this Province. It is a really sad statement in this day and age
(inaudible).
Mr. Chairman, with those few remarks I will end up for today and pick
up a little bit later on. Thank you.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, just a few words as we speak to this particular motion.
My learned friend, the Member for Baie Verte, has made some interesting points with
respect to the effect that many policies of this government are having on rural
Newfoundland, and how unfortunately so many thousands of our people, our native people,
find it necessary, in search of employment, to leave. Of course, we see this perhaps even
more particularly in our smaller communities. We see it in our communities, Mr. Chairman,
where schools have to close, where houses are boarded up, where families are being
depleted, and where employment is virtually non-existent.
Mr. Chairman, it is a difficult time, and of course the question that
has to be asked is: Where are the policies and where are the programs that in fact will
entice our people to stay in rural Newfoundland and hopefully one day return to rural
Newfoundland? Of course, we find that simply does not exist. The programs, the policies,
are not evident. They are certainly not in place, Mr. Chairman, and as a result we see a
continuation of the out-migration which has stricken this Province so severely in the past
number of years. But in view of that sort of reality, we also have the fact that one has
to question how financially this government is going to deal with its fiscal reality in
years to come.
Several weeks ago, the leader of our party issued a press release on
the issue of the budgetary measures which were put in place, and how in fact these
measures are going to be depleted and these programs are going to be depleted in the years
to come. I am thinking in particular, Mr. Chairman, of the HST transitional funding and
the benefits which were to accrue under Term 29.
Under HST transitional funding, which was a 1996 harmonized sales tax
deal, it cut the total sales tax rate from 19.84 per cent to 15 per cent, and the Province
is losing over $100 million a year in revenue. Over $100 million a year is being lost in
revenue as a result of HST transitional funding. To make up for the loss, the federal
government provided transitional funding: $127 million in 1997; $127 million in 1998; $63
million in 1999; $31 million in the year 2000; and none thereafter.
So, all things being equal, we have to find next year an additional $64
million, $96 million the following year, and $127 million the year after, just to break
even. The question has to be asked, Mr. Chairman: Where does the money come from? How
will, in fact, this government be in a position to offer a budget, a budget of confidence,
to the people of this Province, when, based on HST transitional funding alone - we look at
the figures again: in 1997, $127 million; 1998, $127 million; 1999, down to $63 million;
the year 2000, down again to $31 million; and in the year 2001, absolutely zero.
How does this government propose to the people of this Province that it
can deal adequately and effectively in the preparation of its fiscal agenda when we see in
some three short years what is $127 million this year from HST transitional funding will
in fact be reduced to zero? And we have to keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, the backdrop; we
have to keep in mind the context in which we are operating. As I indicated just a few
minutes ago when I began my few brief comments, Mr. Chairman, we continue to have
thousands and thousands leaving our shores in unprecedented numbers.
It has been referenced to me from time to time: But Newfoundlanders
have always had a tradition of leaving. Yes, it is true. In the 1940s and 1950s the Boston
states, in the 1960s Toronto, in the 1970s primarily Toronto, in the 1980s and 1990s
primarily it appears to be all over - Ontario, Atlantic Canada - but perhaps even more
specifically, Western Canada. It has always been a problem.
The main difference, and why our population has always been prepared to
maintain itself, is the fact that families were larger. So if there were a family of eight
or ten and we had four or five leave Newfoundland to resettle in other parts of Canada,
that left three or four to remain and settle in this Province, enough to allow a community
to exist, to thrive, to give it a basis for its medical clinic, to give it basis for its
primary, elementary or high school, to give basis for infrastructure and institutions
within its community. The problem today is the fact that our young people continue to
leave, and because of the reduction in family size there is nobody left. If there is a
family of two and two leave, parents and grandparents only are to remain in that
particular community. That is the problem.
Again, how is government, in a very direct, tangible, hands-on way,
dealing with this crisis of out-migration? Certainly not doing it in adequate budgeting, I
would say, the HST transitional fund being just one example. Let's look at another
example, the Term 29 award. Under that award, Newfoundland and Labrador is entitled to $8
million a year from Ottawa forever and a day, a Term of Union. In 1996, the government
decided to take twenty years of payment, twenty years of its investment, worth $160
million, up front in lump sum payments: $50 million in 1996, $40 million in 1997, and an
additional $40 million in 1998. The remaining $30 million we forego for the privilege of
spending the money all at once. So after this year we receive no more Term 29 funding
until the year 2016. That is, what, another eighteen years. That is when we will see any
derived benefit from the Term 29 award. So we are spending $40 million this year, and we
will not be receiving next year, or any year thereafter until the year 2016, any benefit
under the Term 29 award. Again the question has to be asked: Where is the money coming
from?
We are not getting it in HST transitional funding; we are not getting
it in Term 29 funding. How does this government propose once again to instill confidence
in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when two very real and viable sources of income
through HST and through Term 29 have, to put it simply, dried up. It is gone. How do the
people of this Province expect to have confidence in a government when in fact the very
basis upon which its fiscal planning is created is no longer there? They are serious
questions that have to be addressed.
The issue once again of out-migration, we hear it daily. Every member
in this House has spoken about it repeatedly, but it appears the problem continues to
exist. Young people today in our Province graduate for one reason, and that reason is to
leave. I was told the other day, and I am sure other members have heard it, that complete
classes at university - electrical engineering classes - have left in bulk, getting good
jobs, well-paying jobs, primarily in Western Alberta. Students who have been enroled in
business administration courses and marketing programs and finance administration programs
at what was once Cabot College, now the College of the North Atlantic, the vast majority
of these students are gone.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is right, but I cannot understand why the
change of name, I say to the minister, of all years. Last year when we had the Cabot
celebration we changed the name, Cabot College. It still bewilders me.
Mr. Chairman, a class that I once taught two or three years ago, it was
a law course for appraisers, for students at Cabot College who were doing property
appraisal work, could not find work in this Province and found it necessary to again, in
bulk, the vast majority of them, having to leave to Ontario, leave to Alberta, in search
of work.
It is a sad reality - again the people of this Province who are left,
and that number is dwindling - but very soon people will require answers. It is only a
matter of time when people are going to say: Enough is enough, we want our children to
stay here. We want people who receive degrees from university or certificates from our
post-secondary institutions, or diplomas from high schools. The time is going to come, and
it is going to come very soon, when the people of this Province who are left will say: We
will want these other people to stay. We want our graduates to remain here to live
fruitful lives in their native Province, and not having to leave in search of work, which
essentially is being done against their will.
That is the challenge to this government, and that is a fundamental
issue which has to be recognized, and hopefully in due course will be addressed.
I will now ask my colleague to resume debate on this topic. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Minister of Justice, slow down. How
many more hours do we have left? I think we have another twenty? How many more? You can
blame it on the Government House Leader. If you were House Leader, Minister, we would
probably be out of here now, because you have a way of dealing with and handling people, I
say to the Minister of Justice. If you were sitting in the Government House Leader's chair
we would probably be on our way out of here now. We would be greeting members opposite
here and wishing them the best for their summer vacation.
Because the Government House Leader a couple of months ago got up and
took a smack at this side, I say to the Minister of Justice, and said: I don't know why
they want the House re-opened, because they left ten or fifteen hours on the Budget last
year that wasn't debated. You recall that. You would never say something like that, I say
to the Minister of Justice, because he knows that he would have to get the good will of
the House in order to get legislation through. In fact, if we had another Government House
Leader here I would suggest that we wouldn't be spending half the hours that we spend here
after regular hours.
MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: I never referred to him as being gone, I say to the
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. If we had a Government House Leader here who was
more in tune with the people, could get along with people, give and take a little bit, Mr.
Chairman, I think we would be a lot better off.
My comments today are going to be brief, talking about the budget. The
first thing I remember when I think of the Budget, naturally, is Budget Day. We saw the
Minister of Finance and Treasury Board show up with his new suit, his new tie, and his new
shoes on, deliver a Budget, members on the opposite side getting up to congratulate the
Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and tell him what a wonderful job he has done, how
he has hoodwinked the people again in this Province, put forward a Budget and talked about
the wonderful strides this government has made, and talked about how far they have taken
the books of this Province and the balanced budget that they project to bring forward.
There has been a big price to be paid for this Budget. There has been a
big price paid in order to balance the books. The people who have paid the price are not
people sitting in this House, but the common Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out there
today who find themselves unemployed, living in other provinces, in other countries.
I don't think the person - your son or my daughter or your uncle or
your aunt - living up in Alberta or British Columbia is going to get any great charge out
of picking up a paper someday, The Globe and Mail , and saying: Well, the Budget in
Newfoundland has finally been balanced. It would be good stuff if we could look after our
people here and maintain them here in this Province, and they were able to live, work and
raise their families where they wanted.
The Minister of Finance went through with the consultation process just
a week or two before the Budget was delivered. The Minister of Finance decided that he was
going to go out and consult people. He thought about how he would do it. He thought about
what he did last year, where he travelled to a couple of the centres around the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador, but that was too much trouble this year. He was not going to
allow them to do that; he was going to go high tech. He was going to allow people to go to
certain areas and call him and the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island and
offer their suggestions on what they thought should be and should not be in the Budget,
and where cuts should be made and where money should be spent. Mr. Chairman, the Budget
was already written; the document was already printed. Still, the minister wanted to
appear as if he was helping somebody.
The problem here, the problem with people opposite, especially
government ministers, is that they feel there is no problem. The reason why people leave
this Province is not because they cannot find work; it is because they want to go. That is
what the government member said. In fact, a minister stated here not long ago that most
people are leaving the Province because they want to go.
I can tell you, that is certainly not the case. The calls that I
receive from people looking for work, people looking for jobs, are not people who want to
be told that there are jobs up in Alberta or there are jobs in British Colombia. They
would like to be able to find a job right here in their own Province, not necessarily in
their own community. I do not think that will ever happen. It has never happened in the
past, and I do not think it is going to happen in the future, where we can all live in our
little communities dotted around the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and be able to
get up and walk to work and go home for dinner. That is utopia, I say to members, and that
is certainly not going to happen. But I do not think it is too much to expect for people
to want and to be able to access a job right here in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I know in the community where I live - it is not a fishing community.
Most people there work in the lumber woods, or they chase construction around the Province
and, for the most part, around the country. Most people there in the summertime - most
people are away, especially during the week. You will not find too many men at home.
People go away and work during the week and they go home on weekends, if they are lucky,
or else they come home once a month, once every six months, or whatever their work
situation will allow. There are not very many people there who get up every morning and
work in that particular community, unless you are a school teacher or if you are fortunate
enough to be working in one of the government buildings in Clarenville; I think of the
hospital, HRD, and what have you. That is utopia. Most of the people there are not willing
to do that, but they do not complain if they can find a job.
When you look at statistics that show 41 per cent of post-secondary
graduates having to leave this Province last year to find a job, Mr. Chairman, I think we
can do better than that. I think government has to start addressing some of those
concerns.
We look at schools closing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Most
people are very realistic, and they understand that when the student population decreases
we cannot maintain all of our schools and we cannot maintain all of our school teachers,
that there has to be a reduction, there has to be a comparable ratio.
Mr. Chairman, if we are going to close our schools, and if we are going
to expect those students to travel miles and miles over our roads, then the least we can
do is provide them with a decent road to drive over and a decent building to attend
school.
When you look at what is happening in rural areas today, and you look
at some of those roads that those school buses have to drive over, and when you look at
the school buses themselves, I sometimes question if government is really interested in
what product we are putting out on the other end.
I want to question, Mr. Chairman, if government is really interested
when we see school bus operators being allowed to go to other provinces to buy
fourteen-year-old school buses to transport our children over roads which are probably the
worst in this country. I question, Mr. Chairman, if government has the best interest of
safety uppermost in their minds, and I do not think this should be allowed to happen.
I realize we have inspections, and I realize that bus drivers are good
opera