Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — 31 March 2003 (44th General Assembly, 5th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 7)
2003-03-31
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 31, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 7
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
By leave, if I could, just to read a statement of condolences that I know all
of our members will share in.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. the Premier have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, I extend condolences to our colleague and friend, Tom
Rideout, on the passing of his wife, Jacinta.
Mr. Speaker, the death of a loved one is never easy to accept and it is
particularly difficult when the person is so young and so vital with such a zest
for life. The courage and grace Jacinta Rideout exhibited during her illness
spoke to her strength of character and the compassion she held for others, even
in her own time of great challenge. Her life was devoted to her children, and
always there was time to help others, giving of herself to ensure that others
had more.
The life of a Member of the House of Assembly is very busy, Mr. Speaker, with
great expectations on our time. The families of our MHAs are people who possess
great patience and understanding. The people of this Province are grateful for
the consideration Jacinta Rideout gave to Tom, who chose to serve this Province
and is doing so, so well. We thank her for sharing him with us.
To Jacinta and Tom's children, Terry, Tina, Margaret and Kara-Lynn, carry
with you your mother's strength and compassion and wisdom. In that way, she
will always be with you. I hope that knowing others are thinking of you gives
you comfort at this time of sadness.
Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province extend their condolences to those who
knew and loved Jacinta. Take comfort in the memories you have in your life.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute
to a very wonderful human being, Jacinta Rideout. Yesterday, our dear friend
passed away at the age of fifty-two after a long and courageous battle with
cancer. As we all know, she is the wife of former Premier and the Member for
Lewisporte, Tom Rideout, and, as the Premier acknowledged, mother to Terry,
Tina, Margaret and Kara-Lynn. My heartfelt condolences go out to the family
during this very, very difficult time for all of them.
Jacinta was truly a beautiful person, a wonderful mother and homemaker, and
an exceptional partner. Tom and Jacinta went through life as partners, but they
also went through life as best friends. They had a very special relationship.
Jacinta encouraged Tom, of course, in 1975, to get involved in politics. She was
also, of course, by his side when he became a Cabinet Minister and when he
became Premier. As well I remember, during that campaign, her being a tremendous
asset to Tom. I remember seeing her on TV, and seeing the clips, and she was an
absolutely tremendous asset to Tom during that campaign.
She subsequently supported his change of career and his personal ambition to
become a lawyer at a later stage in his life, and then also supported his return
to politics in 1999. Jacinta was truly Tom's political mentor, and I am
certain there wasn't a decision that was made in that household that wasn't
made by mission control, by Jacinta, that wasn't given her stamp of approval.
She was very brave and very courageous during her illness, and her bout with
cancer, which she fought so long, but I remember well that she was the life of
the party. She had a tremendous sense of humour. She was a great bit of fun. She
always had a smile. She had an infectious smile.
Our caucus will miss her as a colleague and as a friend, and she has been a
source of strength for all of us over the years. I remember when I gave one of
my first speeches in Lewisporte, and herself and Tom were there. I sat down, and
Jacinta was next to me, and I said: How did I do? She said: Good speech, if you
cut it in half.
I will never forget her advice and I have tried to take it ever since. Every
time she spoke, anything politically, I always took her advice and her words of
wisdom because she knew.
We were honoured, and I was particularly honoured, just last spring to pay
tribute to Jacinta and present her with the Distinguished Long-Term Service
Award, which is the highest honour and tribute that we can pay to anybody in our
party. All of us who were there remember it very well. It was an emotional
moment, a very emotional moment, when herself and Tom and the children came to
the stage, but it was a wonderful moment and it was a tribute that she so
rightly deserved.
Maureen and I got to know her and to love her and respect her in our recent
years in politics, and we will miss her company, we will miss her compassion,
and we will miss her humour, and we will never, ever forget her.
She was a dear friend to all of us and our collective thoughts and prayers go
out to her family. She served her family, she served her Province, and she has
served her people so well with dignity and with pride. If there is a spouses'
hall of fame out there, she is at the top of the list.
I ask all members to join with us today, and indeed the entire Province, in
celebrating the life of Jacinta Rideout and now help us mourn her death.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is with great sadness that I join in offering my condolences, and that of
my colleague from Labrador West, to the Member for Lewisporte, Mr. Tom Rideout,
and his family, on the death of Jacinta.
I want to be associated with the remarks of the Premier and the Leader of the
Opposition in recognizing her contribution to the life of her family and the
happiness of her husband and children. I know all of us recognize the great
determination and optimism with which she fought her battle with cancer over the
last number of years. I think we all remember that struggle, and with great
sympathy we pass on our condolences to Mr. Rideout and to his family. To the
children, especially, Terry, Tina, Margaret, and Kara-Lynn, who will miss her
dearly.
It is always very sad when we lose a loved one, but a life partner such as
Jacinta was to the Member for Lewisporte is a very great loss indeed. Our
thoughts and prays are with the Member for Lewisporte and his family in this
particular hour of sadness and remembrance of a good life, a supportive life,
and fine life lived by Jacinta Rideout.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Mr. Jim Davis, a
resident of Stephenville, who was awarded the Minister of Veteran Affairs
Commendation at the fifth annual Ceremony of Remembrance in Ottawa.
This Commendation was created in 2002 to recognize people who have "made
such exemplary contributions through selfless service as a distinguished
representative of Canadian Veterans; and by generously sharing their legacy of
sacrifice with fellow citizens, especially Canada's youth, so that the memory
of those who fought and died for our peace might never dim."
Mr. Davis earned this prestigious award for selflessly devoting thirty-two
years working with the Royal Canadian Air Cadet League, an exemplary youth
organization. In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Davis has also devoted some
thirty years of his life working tirelessly for the Royal Canadian Legion.
Mr. Davis is an outstanding citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador. His
dedication and willingness to serve, his commitment to the youth of the
Province, and his tremendous work with the Veterans of this Newfoundland and
Labrador, make him a shining example for us all.
On behalf of all members of this House, I congratulate him for receiving the
Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to take the opportunity today to highlight an event that will be
taking place in our Province on May 30 to June 2, 2003, and that is the
Newfoundland and Labrador's 4 th Annual Breast Cancer Retreat.
Every year in Newfoundland and Labrador 350 more women are diagnosed with
breast cancer. These women, particularly those in rural and isolated communities
throughout the Province, often feel alone in trying to cope with their fears and
stress of facing this disease. Many value the support of other women who have
been diagnosed with breast cancer. A few years ago, a group of women got
together and organized a Breast Cancer Retreat, the first ever in our Province,
and it has been very successful since.
The 4 th Annual Breast Cancer Retreat will be held at the Terra
Nova Park Lodge, Port Blandford, from May 30 to June 2, 2003. It will be an
invaluable weekend of needed support, education, caring and sharing for an
expected 200 participants. The cost of accommodations and food for the three-day
retreat is considerable. In addition, there will be substantial transportation
fees especially for women travelling from Labrador.
I want to take this opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, to invite all members to
contribute - most of you have received a letter now from the organizing group -
to this very worthwhile cause. I do so each and every year in memory of my
sister, Mary, who passed away on June 26, 2000. I think it is an opportunity to
give women the chance to meet with each other to share their concerns and
hopefully to improve their way of life.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to acknowledge the more than forty young artists who
participated in the Baccalieu Trail Youth Art Showcase recently held in
Carbonear.
The showcase, open to youth ages 15-30, displayed talents such as painting,
music, drama, and singing. This event enabled youth to express and share their
talents and to explore the arts industry as a possible career alternative.
The event was organized by the Baccalieu Trail Youth Council in partnership
with HRDC, RON, Trinity Conception Youth Protocol Committee and Futures in
Newfoundland and Labrador's Youth.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and fellow House members, I would like to
commend all youth who participated in this showcase. I would also like to join
with my fellow colleagues from the Baccalieu Trail to thank the organizing
committee and all volunteers who assisted in this showcase. It is events such as
these that enable our youth to build confidence in themselves to not only
succeed in our Province but throughout the world.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish, at this time, to recognize and congratulate Gonzaga High School on
its production of the musical, Oklahoma! , to sold-out audiences on March
27, 28 and 29 at the Arts and Culture Centre in St. John's.
The performance can only be described as outstanding and representative of a
genuine tribute to the talents and dedication of our high school students
Sincere congratulations are extended to all those individuals who played a
role in this production. In particular, mention must be made to the following
students who played lead roles: Sarah Loveys and David Metcalfe, Stephen Coward,
Leah Coombs, Gillian Langor, Jake Palasvirta, Paddy Torraville, and Emily
Thompson.
Also, we must be proud of those teachers and school leaders who played a
pivotal role, and I refer especially to Jacinta Mackey-Graham, the Director and
Vocal Coach; Korona Brophy, Music Director; Mara Noftall, Choreographer; Ben
Warren, Set Design, and Tom McGrath, Producer.
To Mr. Len White, the Principal of Gonzaga, and to all the faculty and staff,
all students, parents, and to the corporate community at large, we thank you for
your interest, support and superlative effort.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to remind people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
that effective tomorrow, April 1, all used oil disposal will be banned from all
landfill sites within the Province. The new Used Oil Regulations will enable
government and industry to effectively manage all waste oil products, ban
unacceptable disposal methods for used oil, control the storage of used oil and
provide for the proper return of used oil and lubricants.
Mr. Speaker, these regulations represent the first set of regulations
developed as government moves forward with the implementation of its Waste
Management Strategy. This strategy includes disposal bans and waste diversion
programs and the Used Oil Regulations are an important element of government's
action plan to have Province-wide modern waste management by 2010.
Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that approximately 9 million litres of
lubricating oil is sold annually in this Province. Approximately 5 million
litres is available for collection, recycling and reuse. Currently,
approximately 80 per cent of the used oil generated in the Province is already
being collected by several local companies for recycling and reuse. These
regulations will see all the used oil generated in the Province diverted from
the environment and made available for recycling and reuse.
In the development of the Used Oil Regulations, we have consulted with
industry associations and the collectors of used oil and handlers of bulk
storage within the Province. It was evident that there was much support for
these regulations, which not only reduce pollution but encourage business
opportunities in the collection, processing, recycling and reuse of used oil.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to state that there will be no levy on the
sale of oil and that consumers can return used oil to the place of purchase.
Mr. Speaker, an awareness campaign for vendors of lubricating oil and the
general public is currently being spearheaded by the Multi-Materials Stewardship
Board. As well, the Department of Government Services and Lands has recently
hired two new inspectors to enforce the used oil regulations. As well, the
Government Service Centres throughout the Province will be providing information
on these regulations.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of several first steps in the implementation of a
our Waste Management Strategy. While we recognize that much more needs to be
done, this new waste diversion program is a clear indication that we are making
progress and will continue to do so over the months and years ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, one month shy of four years ago, to this day, I presented to
government and through the media, through a news conference, a framework on oil
recycling in this Province. This program that is announced today doesn't go
nearly far enough. In the framework that I did elaborate research on throughout
the other provinces, to see what was done, it was determined that other
provinces have married oil recycling with beverage container recycling through
eco centres and so on, which is a convenient program for consumers. It would
make all recycling programs more established in this Province, because when you
bring your recyclable beverage containers into the depots you also have your
oil.
This program doesn't contain any measures for collecting oil filters. Oil
filters are approximately 80 per cent steel content. They contain up to a litre
of oil. That has been overlooked in this program. It was in our framework that
we presented to government four years ago. It doesn't contain any measures to
recycle containers that the oil comes in. There is obviously residue of oil left
in those containers that can be recovered. The containers themselves are
plastic. Those can be recovered.
Mr. Speaker, if we were implementing this program we would be doing it in a
much better fashion, as outlined in our framework that we presented to
government four years ago.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The statement of the minister sounds good, in that we are going to collect
100 per cent of five-ninths of the oil that is sold in the Province. I do not
understand why the minister has not indicate where the other 4 million litres of
oil are going, so obviously there are inadequacies in the program.
I am concerned also, Mr. Speaker, with the statement that no levy will be
made on the sale of oil and that consumers can return used oil to the place of
purchase free of charge. This is very confusing, because, where most people get
their oil, at service stations, they are still charging a levy and know nothing
about this particular program.
I believe he may be talking about retailers who sell oil off the shelf, and
will have to take it back, but his statement makes it very confusing to people
in the Province who are going to have to live by these regulations.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to inform colleagues
about an important initiative which will improve safety on roads in the
Province.
During the fall 2002 sitting, the House passed Bill 15, an amendment to the
Highway Traffic Act which bans the use of hand-held cellular phones while
driving. I am pleased to inform the House that this bill becomes law tomorrow,
April 1.
Mr. Speaker, this initiative came about as a result of several factors. The
Department of Government Services and Lands had been approached by several
safety organizations and concerned citizens who were in favour of a ban.
Following the initial inquiries, our officials began researching the need for
regulation.
As information and research was gathered, it became more apparent that the
use of hand-held cellular phones while driving was unsafe. One particular study
in the United Kingdom compared the use of a cell phone while driving to driving
after consuming enough alcohol to be considered impaired.
Research in this Province gave government a clear indication of the will of
the people. A survey commissioned by the government showed that 95 per cent of
the people in the Province favoured a ban against the use of hand-held cell
phones while driving.
Mr. Speaker, one might ask why we did not proceed with a complete ban on the
use of cell phones while driving. Our survey data shows that 39 per cent of the
public polled felt that it would be okay to use to hands-free devices to use
their cell phones while driving. As a result, we decided to move forward with a
ban of hand-held phones only.
In fact, we are the first jurisdiction in Canada to pass such a law. Since
this law was passed unanimously by all parties during the last sitting,
government has received a great deal of public support and encouragement for our
decision.
Safety organizations, the police, business leaders, and cell phone companies
have all come out in support of the ban.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members of the House and members of the
public the basics of this ban. Starting tomorrow, April 1, it is illegal in this
Province to use a hand-held cellular phone while driving on any public road.
Enforcement agencies have the right to enforce this law as they do any other.
Drivers found to be in violation can be ticketed $45-$180 and receive four
demerit points per violation.
As I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are confident that
this initiative will ensure greater safety on our roads. My department has
initiated a modest public relations campaign to help ensure public awareness and
compliance. Brochures and road signs have also been erected at entry points of
the Province so that visitors can also be aware of our new law.
Safer driving can only provide better accident and insurance claim numbers.
Drivers should be aware that driving while using a cell phone is not safe, even
when using a hands-free device. I encourage all cell phone users to practice
safe cellular, find alternatives to using the cell phone while driving. If a
cell phone is used with a hands-free device, please ensure that safe driving
comes first.
I am proud to say that this Province has led the country with a law promoting
responsible cell phone use and reducing unsafe driving.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to first of all congratulate the minister on his new portfolio. It is
good to see him there. I also want to thank him for a copy of his statement
before the House opened.
Mr. Speaker, the people on this side of the House certainly had no problem in
supporting Bill 15, banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. If
anybody has talked to a number of people around the Province lately, you
certainly do not want to be on the phone while trying to navigate the holes and
bumps that currently exist around this Province.
Mr. Speaker, one area of concern that we do have is with the enforcement of
this bill. I say to the minister: Will this bill have any teeth? Currently we
see the RNC - I believe they needed approximately eighty officers and they had
some crumbs thrown at them in the recent Budget, Mr. Speaker. If this bill has
no teeth, Mr. Speaker, it is obviously useless.
As well, Mr. Speaker, I now hope that the minister will take it upon himself
to speak to the insurance industries and lobby them hard, so that we have a
reduction on our rates as well as our accidents around this Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
We too, Mr. Speaker, assure the minister and this House that we support any
initiative that will lead to safer driving habits in the Province, and to
greater safety on our highways, but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I do have some
concerns with this because in recent weeks I have been looking around at the
availability of some of the things out there that make your regular cellphone
hands-free. I can tell you some of the ones that I tried will lead to more
unsafe acts than by using a handheld cellphone because some of these things, the
contraptions that are out there, you will need two hands to keep adjusting them
on your head. It is going to take away more caution than what you should be
concentrating on just by doing the adjustment to the microphone, earphones and
all these other things. I think there is a lot of concern out there about the
type of things that people will be buying in order to make their cellphone
hands-free.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say is that
the RNC, in particular, have stated they have some concerns with their ability
to enforce this. I know that people will have to take it upon their own
initiative to uphold the law, but it is going to be a problem area for the RNC
and other police forces to comply with this law from an enforceability point of
view.
I say to the minister, he should try some of the things out there on the
market that converts your phone to a hands-free one and I think that he will
share some of the concerns I have after I tried a few of them, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, on March 19, in the 2003 Speech from the
Throne, government committed that annual reports for departments and agencies
would be tabled during this sitting of the Legislature.
In previous reports to this House, the Auditor General has expressed concern
over the lack of information being provided to the House of Assembly by
government departments, Crown boards and agencies.
Today, we are taking a major step in addressing the need for further
accountability within the public sector.
I am pleased and indeed proud to inform this House that later today, at the
appropriate time in the Orders, I will table the reports of the Department of
Finance and Treasury Board for 2001-2002. Over the coming days, my colleagues
will table the annual reports for their departments and associated boards and
agencies for the 2001-2002 fiscal year.
I thank all our departments, boards and agencies for their cooperation in
working with our Accountability Framework.
Annual reporting is just one of many concrete measures taken by this
government over the course of our mandate to ensure openness and accountability.
In the very near future, government will release From the Ground Up ,
the first report from another major accountability tool: the Social Audit of the
Strategic Social Plan. The Social Audit, with its extensive, detailed and
publicly available Community Accounts, is the first of its kind in Canada.
This government has the courage to test itself and to provide the people of
the Province with the information they need to judge for themselves the work we
are doing on their behalf.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Over four years ago, in the PC policy platform, the Blue Book, you can read
that. On February 14, 2002, almost fourteen months ago, the leader of our party
and myself, at a news conference, said, "...each department and
government-funded agency will be required to present annual performance plans to
the House of Assembly on or before the date when the main budget estimates are
presented to the legislature. The plan must include a statement of goals and
specific objectives, key strategies for achieving each goal and objective, costs
and benefits, and the performance measures that will be used to track results;
and at the end of each fiscal year, departments and agencies will be required to
table annual reports in the legislature ..."
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: By leave to finish?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. SULLIVAN: "...that compare actual performance results for the
fiscal year ..."
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No leave.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am surprised that the minister is proud and pleased to inform the House
that they are going to table reports. The Auditor General said that government
had failed to table reports for nineteen agencies which had legislative
requirements to do so; only nine of them had tabled reports. If the minister
wanted to be pleased and proud she should be announcing today that they are
going to introduce legislation, like other provinces have, to require
departmental reports -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: - all Crown agency reports and the eighty-three agencies who
put reports before this House each and every year, not just when it suits the
minister.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.
Heading into last week's election budget the Premier was predicting a
deficit somewhere between $100 million and $600 million. A very broad range of
nearly half a billion dollars. The Premier was close, but in fact the
consolidated accrued deficit was $666 million, rounded, subject to any increases
for adjustments in wage settlements. However, government is also presenting a
consolidated revenue fund deficit of $212,685,000 and a cash deficit of
$286,575,000, which is nearly five times the projected deficit for last year.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier explain to the people of the Province the
differences between these three deficits and inform us which number he now
considers to be the real deficit number?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I might point out as well, the fact of the matter is: I, as the Premier, did
not predict any particular numbers with respect to deficits. The media
speculated about some numbers, and I did confirm or deny their speculation. The
Opposition certainly speculated about it. As a matter of fact, the Finance
critic that we will hear about for the next two or three weeks uninterrupted, as
he speaks with unlimited time, at one point was bandying about a number of a
billion dollars last year in one of his speeches in the Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: depending on the accounting
practices and how people want to talk about the Budget, there are three options
for people to speak about. They can speak about whichever one they are happiest
and most content with. The information is there so the people have all of the
information before them, and whichever one any particular group, for their own
reason, wants to focus on, is now before them in these documents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind the Premier to read the
article in The Newfoundland Herald
that indicated that his forecasted range was between $100 million and $600
million.
Mr. Speaker, last week in the election Budget, I was pleased to see the
Premier continue to honour his commitment to implement PC policies prior to an
election call, particularly with respect to small businesses and relief for
students. Although I know that those students will not forget that it was these
Liberal governments that increased tuition fees by over 350 per cent during
their terms of office. But, Mr. Speaker, I was not so pleased to see the deficit
quadruple, or to see government borrowing increase to $578 million.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: If the economy, according to his
Minister of Finance, is the best it has been in thirty years, why did the
deficit quadruple, and why did government borrowing increase to $578 million?
What happens, Premier, if we run into bad times?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we did do was listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: - who, Mr. Speaker, clearly wanted us to protect programs
and services, particularly in education, health care, and municipal
infrastructure. We have done that.
Mr. Speaker, what we did not do was adopt policies in Blue Books from the
past. Maybe they have changed now, because we are having a hard time finding out
what they really are. We did not adopt the policy from the document that the
member just showed, that said they would abolish the health boards in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We did not adopt that policy. I suppose we will find
out whether or not that is still a policy of the group. It certainly was when
the Member for Kilbride was the leader.
We did not, Mr. Speaker, adopt a program that said they would do away with
the EDGE program. We just saw improvements to the EDGE program. That was in the
Blue Book when the Member for Kilbride was the leader. We will see if it is
there again or not. What we did was try to enhance opportunities for small
business in Newfoundland and Labrador, not destroy the only agency that tries to
help them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: We certainly did not adopt the foolhardy policy that
suggested that we would open seventy-five additional fish plants in Newfoundland
and Labrador in a previous Blue Book, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: What we did do is, we listened to the people. We have a
Budget in place that reflects the service levels that we are committed to
maintaining in the Province. We have a plan to bring it back under control
through the next term of office, and we will deliver on that plan just like we
have done in delivering on everything else we have committed to in the last two
years, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, during the doctors' strike, I heard the
Minister of Finance loudly proclaim that this government was broke. Her exact
words were: We got no money.
Mr. Speaker, after seeing the projections outlined in last week's election
Budget, it now appears that these comments were made out of pure political
opportunism.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain how government's fiscal
projections could be so off base that over a period of a few short months we
could move from, quote: We got no money, to, quote: Our financial situation is
actually better than it has been for all but a few years since Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, are government's projections really that bad or was government
making comments out of pure political opportunism?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If we want to revisit the doctors' strike, I will gladly do so, in which we
committed to make an offer of some $50 million over three years, which we
thought was affordable to the government, which we have now put before an
arbitration board.
The doctors, if people want to remember, were asking for double that. Their
starting point was $100 million. It was in that context that we were explaining
to the people of the Province that we had made a very reasonable offer and we
hope that the arbitration board comes in much closer to the $50 million mark
than anything else.
Mr. Speaker, the other
part is this: The finances of the Province -
acknowledged by financial experts, not by politicians on one side of the House
or the other - have been recognized as being on target. What we predict is what
we deliver, well managed, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, we have gotten a credit
rating upgrade. You do not get credit rating upgrades -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: - for things other than that, Mr. Speaker.
What we are seeing is this: What we all should be very proud of is that we do
have a provincial economy that is performing better than any other in the
country. We do have some commitments that we need to make, that we have made to
the people of the Province, that ideally we could have waited, because let me
just give this one number as an example, Mr. Speaker. If we had asked our public
servants, all of them, to wait another year or two or three for the raises they
so richly deserved, after waiting ten years, there would $120 million that would
not be in this deficit figure today, but we decided they had waited long enough,
and that the prospects were good enough, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: The prospects were clearly good enough to grant the
raises now, pay for it into the future, because the economy will be able to
withstand it over time even if it cannot exactly balance it today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier is obviously not listening to his ministers. Soon
after the Minister of Finance made the statement at a press conference, that: We
got no money, I heard the Minister of Health express concern over the government's
increased borrowing habits. He said the Province could not continue to borrow
money because it eventually had to be paid back, and that he was not comfortable
passing the burden on to his children.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain what has changed since the
doctors' strike? Why is it that the government is now prepared to borrow $578
million in order to support their election Budget but they were not prepared to
borrow to pay physicians a salary that is comparable with the rest of Atlantic
Canada?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, if we want to revisit the issue surrounding a point in time when we
unfortunately had a doctor's strike, I think it was well over a week before
anyone could even get a comment from the Leader of the Opposition as to what his
position was. He hid away for a week before he tried to figure out what he could
or could not say.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have the Leader of the Opposition
who seems to be saying today that we should have given the doctors more than the
$50 million that we offered at the arbitration. I take it that is what he is
saying today.
Mr. Speaker, we do have concerns about the finances of the Province. We mange
them prudently, and we have a plan to bring it back into balance over four
years, Mr. Speaker, which is what the financial institutions and the financial
backers of the Province demand and expect of us. They have examined the
prospects of Newfoundland and Labrador and they have rated them as being
realistic and achievable, Mr. Speaker, something that, with prudent management
which we have delivered in the last couple of years, they fully expect us to
meet the targets we laid out in this Budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: How prudent was it to have your picture in the paper at a
cost of $250,000 last year? That doesn't sound very prudent to me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, rather than acting responsibly the day this
government brought down an election budget that promised a little bit of
something for everyone, instead of taking advantage of increased revenues to
manage the deficit and bring borrowing under control, the Premier decided to
defer any kind of fiscal restraint until after the election, just like he
deferred any reductions in his Cabinet size and just like he deferred
implementing fixed terms for his government.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain why he chose to defer fiscal
restraint until after the election? Could it be that he is more interested in
trying to buy votes, to buy people with their own money, than he is in doing
what is in the best long term interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe if the Leader of the Opposition keeps saying enough stuff we might find
out what his real intentions are. Mr. Speaker, today he is suggesting that we
are delaying balancing a budget until after the election, as if there is
something wrong with that. Does that mean he would balance the budget today, if
he were over here, that he would cut $300 million in expenditures right away? Is
that his suggestion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the line of questioning today started again
with the reminder that the Opposition suggests we have been adopting policies
from them, from the Blue Book. His policy, as stated publicly on February 25
with CBC television, was that we would balance the books over time too, says the
Leader of the Opposition, but if it was us - because we have stated we will
balance it over one term of office, four years - it has to be a five to ten-year
plan.
AN HON. MEMBER: CBC?
PREMIER GRIMES: On the CBC Evening News. Here he is criticizing us,
suggesting that we are going to leave it until after an election, when we are
going to do it in four years, one term of office, when his own stated intention
is to take ten years to do it, Mr. Speaker, five to ten years; his own words, in
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Today he is suggesting that there is something completely
different. Maybe we will find out what his real thoughts are. We have laid our
plan before the people, Mr. Speaker, and we will deliver on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Province's deficit for 2003-2004 is projected to be $666 million. Now,
this is the first year that we are seeing a net addition and a depreciation of
tangible capital assets. Now, statement three of the Consolidated Accrual Budget
here shows that under Net Additions of Tangible Capital Assets, under the
Consolidated Revenue Fund and Other Entities, there are $129,038,000. However,
depreciation applied to these assets if you combine both, I say to the minister,
only amounts to $4,612,000 or 3.5 per cent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is the first year we have seen an accrual budget on this basis. I want
to ask the minister, based on the figure she has put here we want to look at the
authenticity figures, so I will ask her this question: Will the minister explain
to this House, first of all, what the new policy pertaining to Tangible Capital
Assets is, and will she tell this House what the Consolidated Accrual Deficit
would be if we expensed these assets rather than depreciated those assets?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, out of sympathy for the people of the
Province I am half-tempted to ask him to repeat the question again, quite
frankly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: But I will certainly say, Mr. Speaker, this is a new
table that was added. It is part of our own accountability mechanisms that we
have put in place as commited. What it speaks to is a new formula that has been
added by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants earlier this year, and
is put in place to allow for depreciation in government as is currently being
done in the private sector. In other words, over a period of time. For example -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would answer - I say to the members opposite, I would
be happy to answer if you want to actually understand it.
What this allows government to do, for the first time, is to expense over the
life of a property the depreciation value. So instead of putting the full cost
upfront when it is borrowed, you are allowed to actually expense it over the
life of the asset. For example, instead of putting the full cost of the
thirty-year borrowing today, we are allowed to expense it over the thirty years.
So a $30 million building would be expensed, depreciated, at $1 million a year,
and that is how it is done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
She is trying to give us a definition of what depreciation is and avoiding,
completely, my question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am trying to look at the trickery and figures here in this Budget. I asked
the minister: What would the accrual be on a consolidated accrual basis if you
expensed it rather than depreciated it? And you would not answer it.
I will ask you another question and maybe - the minister was talking about
unamortized beginning balance of tangible capital assets. It is not what I
asked.
I will ask her a question. The depreciation - if she would look at Statement
III - listed there of the Unamortized Beginning Balance of Tangible Capital
Assets under the Consolidated Revenue Fund and other entities is $123,358,000,
if you add up these figures. I would to ask the minister -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question, quickly.
MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member; quickly.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess they are trying to defend the minister and not let her answer the
question. Will the minister tell this House the value of these assets that are
subject to such depreciation and the rate of depreciation applied in the
unamortized beginning balance of tangible capital assets? I ask the minister:
Can you stand and tell us that one?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this is a burning issue on
the minds of the 533,000 Newfoundlanders in our Province. We talk about tangible
asset capital adjustments. The member opposite knows, and we sit through the
Estimates in the House of Assembly. We go through each of our departments line
by line. Now, in this particular issue here, this is a new table that has been
introduced. I will be more than happy to provide, through my colleagues in the
Department of Works, Services and Transportation, all of our tangible assets.
The depreciation formulas that are used for each of the hundreds of buildings
and assets and ferries and everything we have in this Province. Now, Mr.
Speaker, this is the first time this table has been entered into our Public
Accounts as it relates to the Budget, and we are more than happy to answer the
line by line items of each of our depreciated assets over the whole period of
the Budget and through the analysis of the Budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am now going to ask a question that involves nine plus six equals fifteen,
Mr. Speaker. The Budget made reference to fifteen additional new officers hired
for the RNC. Now, minister, you know full well that nine new officers were hired
last summer and their contracts were extended right up until today, the last day
of the fiscal year. In addition to needing them you presented warrants here in
this House for over a million dollars for overtime on top of that.
Will the minister confirm that in this Budget, that she is proposing, there
will only be six more RNC officers employed as a result of this Budget who are
working today in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I read out in the Budget about the new
officers to the RNC. I did present a special warrant for overtime. I take great
offence to the Member for Ferryland talking about the trickery. There is no
trickery here. There is voodoo economics, and they are yours. It is not our
trickery, I say to the people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: We listen to the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: We have made an allocation and, Mr. Speaker, we are the
first ones to admit that there is a need for more RNC officers. We have put what
we felt we could afford this year, in consultation with the police and the
Minister of Justice. We have already identified the need and we will continue to
try to meet those needs in the next budget year.
Mr. Speaker, the money we have provided is to meet the needs that have been
put forward by the people of the Province who are represented by the RNC. The
only trickery and the only voodoo economics here is by the crowd over there, I
would say.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the all-party committee on Northern Cod and
Northern Gulf Cod fisheries met over the winter and prepared twenty-two
recommendations that were presented to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on
March 17. Essential to these recommendations was the absolute necessity - and as
I thought - the unanimous agreement that the fishery in 2J+3KL and 4Rs+3Pn had
to remain open. Within twenty-four hours of the FRCC report on 4Rs+3Pn cod this
Province's Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was quoted in The Telegram
- and I have it right here - saying that Minister Thibault should go beyond the
FRCC recommendations and probably close the fishery.
Mr. Speaker, why has the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture taken a stand
that is completely at odds with the all-party position? Will she explain how a
closure of 4Rs+3Pn will be better to the people on the West Coast and Southern
Labrador than an open fishery?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And thank you for the question because I think it is important that the
perspective on this issue be clear, and very clear, for the public.
Mr. Speaker, the recommendations that went forward from the all-party
committee were very much to the point, very much to the issue in terms of what
the hopes and wishes of the industry were in Newfoundland and Labrador. I stand
by those recommendations, as I did two weeks ago in that report. I stand by them
today as I did at every rally I attended over the last two days. This minister
and this government will do whatever is necessary to ensure that this fishery
stays open.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North;
final supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the all-party committee
were not arrived at easily and caused us a great deal of concern. We took the
controversial positions that we did with the understanding there was unanimity
amongst the group and agreement with our respective caucuses.
Mr. Speaker, given that the minister has strayed from the all-party position,
and the Premier's Parliamentary Assistant has taken exception to the position
of the all-party committee, hasn't government members effectively scuttled the
position, scuttled the agreement, scuttled the report, scuttled the committee
and the position that we went to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a very serious issue that confronts the people in our Province today,
the people in the fishing industry. I can guarantee you that the members on this
side of the House stand by the recommendations in that report.
The hon. member raised an issue with regard to differences of opinion around
certain recommendations. There will always be differences of opinion around
recommendations in any report, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Over the last couple of days we have heard different
perspectives from certain people in the industry, but I think what you have to
realize is that collectively, in consultation, we went forward with a set of
recommendations. As the minister I stand by those and will continue to be
forceful with the federal minister in terms of bringing our perspectives to him
in the next couple of weeks before he takes a decision on this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, fifteen months ago this government announced changes to the
Labour Standards regulations. One of those changes was to have been effective
tomorrow, April 1; namely, that overtime rates in the Province would be paid at
one-and-a-half times the employee's regular rate of pay, rather than the way
it is now, one-and-a-half times the minimum wage.
Those changes were agreed to at a round table meeting between employers and
workers, agreed to by the Employers' Council and the Federation of Labour, and
unanimously recommended by the Labour Standards Tribunal.
Why is this government, Minister, refusing to implement those recommendations
that would provide the people of our Province with this benefit?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: I remind the Leader of the Opposition that there is more
than one Mickey Mouse in Newfoundland. I am not the only one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: I realize that you have a problem, but do not direct your
comments towards here because this is a very, very important issue we are
talking about here. Now I realize you do not have the people of Newfoundland at
heart; you are more interested in shouting across the House in terms of calling
people names.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Labour.
MR. BARRETT: I apologize to the Member for Labrador West. It is a very,
very important issue. The Employers' Council and the labour movement, under
the strategic partnership, had agreed to these arrangements back last year and
when we got up to the date that they were supposed to be implemented, with
representation from employers' groups and employees, there were some
complications in implementing the proposals on April 1, and what we have done is
delayed the implementation. Right now there is a consultation going on with
employees, the labour movement and the Employers' Council, so we can move this
recommendation forward.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister knows full well that these changes were promised here in this
House of Assembly. They were discussed as long ago as three years, since June,
2000. The former minister announced the changes in the House in December, 2001.
I say to the minister, you had fifteen months to deal with any problems that
may have arisen from this change. Why has your department waited until the last
minute to address those changes and when, in a time frame, can people of this
Province - now that you have welshed on this - expect to be covered by this
important change to the Labour Standards?
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: I want to remind the hon. member, he just said in his
statement that what we had agreed here was not a government initiative. This was
an initiative that was implemented and agreed to by all parties. It was agreed
to by all parties, and when we got to the date that it was to be implemented,
there were some problems with implementation on that particular date and by
unanimous consent we asked for a delay in implementation of the regulation.
These same groups are back at the table right now, trying to sort out the
differences. Once they have sorted out the differences, then we will implement
the plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am able to
table the annual report for the Department of Finance ending March 31, 2002.
This is the first time the department has tabled such a report and it confirms
this department's commitment to a more open and accountable process as
outlined in the Throne Speech.
Further, Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table the annual reports of
the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation and the C.A. Pippy Park
Commission. It is interesting to note as well, Mr. Speaker, that the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation made $93 million in the fiscal year
2001-2002 and C.A. Pippy Park Commission will complete its master plan which,
when released, of course, will set the direction for the C.A. Pippy Park in the
years ahead.
Further, Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I table the report
entitled, The Annual Activity Reports. This report is a supplementary to the
annual report of the Department of Finance and it contains activity statements
of certain agencies of the Department of Finance for which no formal annual
report has been prepared. These agencies in the supplementary include: the
Newfoundland Government Fund Limited, the Newfoundland and Labrador Sinking
Fund, the Newfoundland and Labrador Industrial Development Corporation, Hotel
Buildings Limited, the Newfoundland and Labrador Pooled Pension Fund, the
Government Money Purchase Plan, and Newvest Realty Corporation. Mr. Speaker,
this report is to be read with the annual reports, as well, of the Department of
Finance.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the 2002 Annual Report of
Treasury Board Secretariat, and also the 2002 Annual Report of the Labrador
Transportation Initiative Fund.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Last Wednesday, I believe it was, I undertook to provide figures for
employment with the White Rose project in the Province. Mr. Speaker, the reality
is that in all facets of the project, as of February 28, 2003, total employment
was 1,316. Total employment in Newfoundland and Labrador was 768. Total number
of Newfoundland and Labrador residents was 561.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these numbers are skewed a bit by the fact that they
include those parts of the project, especially the hull and turret which cannot
be done in Newfoundland and on which 500 or 600 people are working in various
parts of the world.
The White Rose topsides employment numbers as of February 28, 2003, are as
follows: Total topsides employment in St. John's is 248. Total topsides
employment in Marystown is 310. Total employment is 558 people. Total number of
Newfoundland and Labrador residents employed is 403 people, Mr. Speaker. I am
happy to lay this before the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition from a large number of residents
concerning the Provincial Drug Prescription Program. Mr. Speaker, the petition
calls on government to implement coverage for high cost drugs such as those
required to treat Alzheimer's, MS, and other diseases that people have in this
Province. These drugs are high cost and people need assistance if they are able
to purchase them. Not everybody in this Province, Mr. Speaker, has drug
prescription plans that will provide for coverage of these drugs, and even those
with plans, many of them have a cap as to the lifetime maximum that you are able
to claim. Many people in this Province do not have any plans whatsoever.
This only applies, Mr. Speaker, to working men and women of this Province
because they are the ones who are caught in the middle of this unfair treatment.
Every other province in this country has provisions for coverage for these
high-priced drugs. We are the only Province in this country that does not
provide any assistance whatsoever to its residents.
Mr. Speaker, the minister went around the Province a few months ago, or a few
weeks ago, talking to people about what they would like to see contained in this
Budget. I have to say, as many others in this Province, that we are very
disappointed that the minister did not include expanded coverage for these drugs
in this year's Budget. Many people now have to make the choice between putting
food on the table, taking care of their children's education, taking care of
any retirement plans they may have by way of saving any RRSPs, to purchase a
drug required for their illness. They have to spend every cent they have coming
in, Mr. Speaker, in order to provide the treatment that they need to control the
illness that they have. That is not fair to the working people of this Province.
Indeed, as I have said many times, there are people in this Province today,
whom I have spoken to recently, who are considering unfortunately having to move
from this Province to take up residence in other provinces simply because other
provinces provide coverage
whereas our Province does not. I think that is a sad
reflection on this government, that we are leaving people out in the cold;
people who did not bring this disease on themselves, who do not have the ability
to pay. Many people, Mr. Speaker, are going without the drugs they require
simply because they cannot afford to purchase them, and many people are
sacrificing every other area of their life and that of their families in order
to purchase the drugs necessary to treat these diseases.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: Just by leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask this government to
reconsider their decision not to provide this coverage because many people in
this Province are looking forward to them bringing in a change that will help
them out, and considerably help out the families of these people. I think it is
only fair that this government and this Province extend to the residents the
benefits that every other province in this country extend to their residents.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition on behalf of over 100 people in the St.
Mary's Bay community of St. Vincent's, St. Stephen's and Peter's River.
The prayer of the petition reads as follows:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following
prayer:
WE the undersigned citizens of St. Mary's Bay Centre Area hereby draw your
attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route
90, St. Mary's Bay;
WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of
the Highways Safety Act to protect its citizens not only from commuters but also
from unsafe highways; and
WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority
of any government;
THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding
to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 90.
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present this petition on behalf of the
people of the communities of St. Vincent's, St. Stephen's, Peter's River,
and I ask the minister to take into consideration the main issue of this
petition, and that is the safety of the travelling public.
Just this past weekend, I was in St. Mary's Bay. I guess with the spring
thaw now we are finding that the roads in the area, in this particular part of
my district, are absolutely atrocious and are causing some major concerns. I
spoke to many people who commute back and forth on a daily basis and they are
very, very concerned about the road conditions, the amount of damage being done
to vehicles, but most importantly is the safety of the children who are
travelling back and forth to the school in St. Mary's, the ambulance operators
in the area, and certainly even the Department of Works, Services and
Transportation, their own operators, in their own vehicles, are finding it very
difficult to operate on these roads.
This is 2003, Mr. Speaker, and certainly we have made major improvements in
this area in relation to enhancement of the tourism industry, such as the major
development on St. Vincent's beach itself. To bring people down to the area
and expect tourists to come to the area is certainly something that we need to
offer a good road, and certainly a safe road. It seems that the underlining
concern that people have here is the safety issue.
I ask the minister, as he prepares now to take what is his Provincial Roads
Program for this year, to consider putting money into this area. It runs from up
into the Mount Carmel, St. Catherine's area right down into St. Mary's Bay.
That is one part of the area, and on the road leading into the community of
North Harbour, between Colinet and North Harbour, there is major work needed on
that piece of road. We had a couple of major washouts there last year, Mr.
Speaker, that have been addressed through special funding from the department,
but the main road itself certainly needs some recapping and some resurfacing in
many places.
I spoke to the former minister on this on several occasions over the past
fall and winter, and bring it forward here today in the House to enlighten the
new minister, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. I certainly
hope that funding of some sort, Mr. Speaker, will be -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: Just a couple of seconds, Mr. Speaker, to close?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to bring it
forward to the new minister now and hope that he will have the opportunity
somewhere - and I invite the new minister to travel to my district to view
first-hand the conditions of the roads, and to understand why the people have
started presenting petitions here in the House, through me, because of the
situation they have and the unsafe conditions of those roads.
I certainly hope that the minister will find it in his time to come down to
the district, to have a look first-hand. Hopefully, through the petitions that
we forward here in the House over the next few days, the issue will be raised
once again, money will be forthcoming and the funding will be forthcoming to
address this major concern that people have.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today as well to present a petition. The petition reads: To the hon.
House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened,
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS Route 235 from Plate Cove East to the Open Hall intersection has not
been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-six years ago; and
WHEREAS this
section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that
vehicles are being damaged, including school buses serving schools in the area,
and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to upgrade and pave the approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Plate
Cove East to the Open Hall intersection.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by people who have travelled over that
section of highway. They are not asking for the government to upgrade and pave
thirty kilometres of road, or 300 kilometres of road. They are asking them to go
into that area this year, under this 2002-2003 capital works budget, and upgrade
and pave three kilometres of road. On that particular
section of road, Mr.
Speaker, today if you drive down there you will see a speed sign, thirty
kilometres an hour - that is twenty miles an hour - which is the speed sign that
is erected on that particular
section of roadway.
The road has deteriorated to such a condition that it is almost impassable.
It was only a few days ago, and I brought forward the situation here in this
House, where a resident of the area damaged her vehicle to such an extent that
only did she have to replace the motor, with damage to the base pan where she
lost the oil, but after the motor was repaired found out that she had to replace
the transmission as well. Who is responsible for it? Certainly not her, Mr.
Speaker. The government says they are not responsible. So, this lady is
soliciting the services of a lawyer to find out who is responsible for letting
this
section of road deteriorate to the condition that it is in today.
Those people are not asking for sidewalks, Mr. Speaker, they are not asking
for street lights. All they are asking is that Route 235, this
section of Route
235, one of the main thoroughfares leading to the Bonavista Peninsula - an area
that we have identified as a tourism attraction, an area that we have identified
and spent a fair bit of money, I might add, in places like Bonavista, Port Union
and Elliston, in order to promote tourism and give the people, the residents of
those communities, an opportunity for seasonal employment and to seek the
benefits of the tourism industry. The only way that we are going to realize the
full potential, Mr. Speaker, is to offer a decent road to drive over.
It was only a couple of days ago that I went into a garage going down Route
235, and I talked to the garage owner there, and he told me about the complaints
that he was getting.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, just a minute to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: The garage owner talked about people coming to his
business there in the summertime and, with the road being that bad, they had
heard reports on the road and asked to park their vehicles on the garage parking
lot rather than take their vehicles down over that highway, unhook their
trailers, drive down and come on back the same day.
So, if we are serious about tourism, if we are serious about putting
infrastructure in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and if we are serious about
having rural Newfoundland and Labrador survive, I say to the Minister of Works,
Services and Transportation, it is time for us to get serious about doing some
roadwork in order for those people and those businesses to survive in this
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take the opportunity this afternoon to present a petition on
behalf of the people from Castors River to Eddies Cove East, the Strait of Belle
Isle district and St. Barbe district.
The petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and
Labrador in legislative session convened:
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS the Health Care Facility in Flower's Cove is in dilapidated
condition; and
WHEREAS the building is not completely wheelchair accessible, has very bad
ventilation, poor air quality and is much too small for the services provided by
the centre; and
WHEREAS the report titled Facility Assessment and Master Planning, dated
October, 2002, recommended that a new modern health care centre replace the
existing centre in Flower's Cove due to the vast amount of deficiencies which
are detailed within this report.
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and in particular the Minister of Health and Community Services to assist in
ensuring that the Flower's Cove Health Care Facility be replaced with a new
modern health care centre.
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that I have raised on a number of occasions
since I was first elected here a little over two years ago. If you go into the
health care centre in Flower's Cove it becomes abundantly clear the minute you
walk through the door that the centre is in a serious state of disrepair and
certainly in need of a great number of improvements.
Mr. Speaker, as I said here in the petition I am presenting on behalf of the
people in that area, there is a report - I am assuming the Minister of Health
and Community Services has now - entitled: Facility Assessment and Master
Planning, a review of the facility at Flower's Cove. It says quite clearly
that the facility is in a serious state of disrepair and is in desperate need of
replacing.
This facility is wheelchair accessible. It says here it is not entirely
wheelchair accessible. It is wheelchair accessible in that you can get in
through the door. But, Mr. Speaker, you cannot move through the facility. The
rooms, where the health care professionals are trying to provide the services to
the people, are cramped. There is no room to get around the hallways. They are
very narrow. Some of the offices have actually been taken and divided in half in
order to make room for everybody; to give everybody a bit little of space.
Mr. Speaker, this facility was built in the late 1970s, as I recall, and is
very similar to the facility in Forteau in Southern Labrador. There has been
quite extensive renovations on the facility in Forteau over the past ten years
now since the facility was initially -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. TAYLOR: By leave, to conclude, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in just a couple of short minutes I will
conclude.
The facility in Forteau was very similar, initially, to the one in Flower's
Cove. I suspect there are vast differences in these two facilities right now. As
I said, over the course of approximately - probably well up toward ten years now
since some of the recommendations were changed. I think there is a palliative
care unit added to the facility in Forteau. Certainly, there were substantial
renovations made.
Mr. Speaker, I support the people of Flower's Cove and the people from
Castors River to Eddies Cove East in this petition where they call upon the
Minister of Health and Community Services and the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to do the appropriate thing and put a health care centre in this area
that is suitable for the needs of the people and provide them with the services
they so rightfully deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in my
district. This particular petition is from the community of Nippers Harbour. I
will read the pray of the petition:
We, the undersigned residents of Nippers Harbour of the District of Baie
Verte, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and pave our roads.
The deplorable and unfit conditions of roads in our area make travelling to and
from school unsafe for our children, as well as jeopardize the safety of the
travelling public, hurt economic growth opportunities, and portray a lack of
commitment to rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, this particular community over the last little while has had
some very serious problems with school busing. They had a situation where they
had problems with brakes. They had a situation where the bus had to be inspected
over and over again. Simply put, there are seventeen kilometres of gravel roads
still leading into this particular community, a community that is contributing
to the Province. It has a number of longliners in that community. They have done
very well in the last couple of years, and that is the good news part of it.
These people believe that they deserve something better.
As a matter of fact, with respect to the last minister who was in this
department, they thought that last summer they would at least - not even asking
for pavement - get some kind of upgrade, some kind of decent material to put on
the road, so that it would become a half decent road. That is what they were
asking for last year, but that did not happen. The kind of material that went on
the road - a lot of people think - made it even worse.
Here we are again this year, Mr. Speaker, member after member, especially
around rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, standing up for people to go
around throughout their communities to have the right - and get ready another
petition to present on the floor of this House of Assembly. Year after year we
see the same thing for the same reason, that there is no long-term plan. There
is no plan that shows you we are going to look at something three, five, six and
seven years down the road. It is not even enough to look at the second year.
They look at from April to April. So everybody is scrambling around - and we are
talking to any minister, with all due respect to the minister - to talk to the
minister to say -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: As a matter of fact, they are coming tomorrow night, I say
to the minister. We will be talking to them again. I am sure the minister does,
commend the people for coming here tomorrow night. They are travelling for some
seven hours tomorrow. When they arrive we are going to sit down with the
minister and they are going to give their side for their community and explain
their situation.
The minister, I tell you, is going to get a firsthand view of this particular
community and what they have gone through with the problems in busing in their
communities and how parents are afraid to put their children on the buses.
Remember, since school reform we have seen extended distances that children have
to travel now under these conditions. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, they
were afraid for the safety of their children because the road, as some people
described it, is like going over a washboard, bump after bump.
In Harbour Round today, I had more calls from different rural communities
around my district - a number of gravel roads. There is still some over 900
kilometres of gravel road.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: By leave, just to conclude, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. SHELLEY: There is still some over 900 kilometres of gravel road
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a fact. I see some ministers
shaking their heads, but that is a fact. There is still over 1,500 kilometres of
old pavement - twenty-five years and older - that is popping up all over the
place.
Whether you drive in any part of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially as
some people described earlier, the winter pavement season is over. The winter
pavement - that is ice and snow that keeps it flat so we can grade it for awhile
- is over. We are back to reality again now. As you drive throughout this
Province, and especially on gravel roads and the old pavement, you very soon
realize that there is a major problem in this Province. What is budgeted for
this year is certainly not going to come close to addressing that. We need a
longer-term plan that is going to finally address the real serious problem in
this Province when it comes to roads.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Conception
Bay South, in particular the area residents of Foxtrap and Kelligrews. I ask the
House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:
We, the undersigned citizens of Conception Bay South, would like to bring to
your attention the current environmental hazards on the Incinerator Road in
Foxtrap;
WHEREAS it is the duty of the provincial government to protect our
environment; and
WHEREAS the safety of our residents could be affected by developments in this
area;
THEREFORE your petitioners ask for a freeze on industrial permits for this
area until a full environmental assessment is complete, as in duty bound your
petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, currently, before the Minister of Environment and his
department, there is an application for the relocation of a commercial salvage
yard from its present location to the current location, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on the weekend I was fortunate enough to obtain aerial
photographs of that current site. This was in its infancy and you can certainly
tell the damage it has done to the soil and the environment around that area.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is about to move to a current contaminated area, and they
are planning on burning waste oil. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly reason
for us to be against that development.
Mr. Speaker, it is as much about what currently exists on Incinerator Road as
it is that new application. Currently, on Incinerator Road there is a rendering
plant that you can smell for miles. When the air is right, the southerly wind is
blowing - I say to the Minister of Environment who is here in the House this
afternoon, I can assure him, he would have a job to barbecue and eat his meal in
any kind of comfort if that was blowing his way.
As well, Mr. Speaker, we have a used oil storage site on Incinerator Road.
There is a waste management storage site that the current minister says he has
visited. I say to him, there is currently sewage on top of the ground, there are
wetlands contaminated and there are rivers contaminated from that facility. I am
sure if the Minister of Environment visited that site he had no problem seeing
the pipe out under the fence and the raw sewage flowing into the river and the
wetlands.
As well, Mr. Speaker, it is the home of the former CBS landfill site. The old
teepee incinerator, in fact, still sits there with nothing being done to it.
There has been very little remediation done to that site, Mr. Speaker. As well,
there is a PCB storage yard there, there is radioactive storage and a salt
storage shed as well.
Recently, there was a proposed biomedical site, and I want to commend the
former Minister of Environment, the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East,
for taking the time and listening to the area residents, meeting with them and
making the right decision, denying it based on what currently exists at that
site, I say to the current minister.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have reasons for not wanting that there. Currently,
there is a 150-lot subdivision on the Foxtrap Access Road. As well there is a
high residential area. There is a river system that runs from Incinerator Road,
that follows along a path out through Kelligrews and stops right in our
recreation area, our hub of activity in the summertime. We have a soccer field,
a softball field, a rugby field, and, I say to the minister, it is not uncommon
to see small kids playing in the river during the summertime. There is a school,
Madam Speaker, and, as the crow flies, it is probably only a
kilometre-and-a-half to two kilometres away from this facility. Mr. Speaker,
there are approximately 1,200 students who attend that school and we certainly
wouldn't want to infringe upon the health of our students.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FRENCH: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FRENCH: As well, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of farms in the
area, agricultural and livestock farms, that currently experience acid rain on a
regular basis and whose crops are infested with rodents, to the point that they
lose a large portion of their crops every year. Mr. Speaker, the minister, I
know, has letters from these people. I certainly hope he reads them carefully.
As well, Mr. Speaker, just up the road from this facility there is the Marine
Institute. This training centre is probably one of the most modern of its kind
in the world today. They train people for the offshore, as well as firefighting
courses. There are days at that facility, Mr. Speaker, when the air conditioning
units have to be turned off because of the air quality in the area. I say, Mr.
Speaker, it is an absolute disgrace.
As well, Mr. Speaker, we have the Works, Services and Transportation depot
there as well. I certainly would not want any of our public servants in harm's
way with all the conditions that currently exist there. I say, in light of what
currently exists on Incinerator Road, that the minister certainly listen to the
advice of the residents, and I add this petition of a couple of hundred names
along with the several hundred the previous minister received, and ask him to
make the right decision as his former minister did.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I take the occasion to rise to present a petition to this House of
Assembly, signed by over 300 residents of the Marysvale-Georgetown area
concerning - and I will just read the petition, Mr. Speaker, if I could:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS Ryan's Road in the community of Marysvale has deteriorated to the
point that safety of motorists and pedestrians is being compromised; and
WHEREAS access to residential homes and businesses has been seriously
affected; and
WHEREAS little, if any, maintenance and repairs are carried out on Ryan's
Road on an annual basis;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to make a commitment to include the upgrading of this road system in its annual
capital disbursement for the upcoming fiscal year.
And as is duty bound your petitions will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I refer to Ryan's Road in Marysvale. There are three
residences on that road, as well as a convenience store, the Hill Top Video and
Variety. This is the only convenience store in this community and the customers
signed this petition, well over 300 of them. It says, basically, what they are
asking, is that they need improvements to the conditions and physical state of
Ryan's Road in Marysvale. They have to use this road on a daily basis to gain
access to the only variety store in the area. If possible, they are asking, of
course, that the road may be paved. At best, the drainage problems need to be
properly done and the bottom of the road should be paved, regardless, to prevent
future problems. They signed, thanking the minister for hopefully addressing the
problem.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a small business operation that has been run by a
single parent who has been very, very successful in putting together this
particular business. But, you know, she has had to struggle against tremendous
odds to, I guess, keep the business competitive because if the road leading to
it is not adequate, the customers are going to bypass that particular business
and go elsewhere. That is the problem that this proprietor is having in dealing
with flooding in the spring, snow clearing in the wintertime. It is the last
area to be done and, of course, being the last area done, people trying to get
out to avail of the business are passing it by and going elsewhere. The
flooding, the ditching is required -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker, if I could.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to bring it to his attention. Of course, it has been brought to
the attention of the minister who has responded, and responded in a sense that
he has committed to look at it but not a commitment to have it done.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, it has to be done because this is a business. It is
a business that is absolutely necessary in this community. We have a proprietor
who has put together a successful business and is providing employment for at
least two other people on a yearly basis. Just some annual basic maintenance,
Class A, some ditching, possible pavement, even at the end of the road to keep
it from deteriorating would certainly help the cause.
Again, these 300 people, they are putting it, I guess, before this House and
asking the minister to intervene, to make sure that this is a priority for the
capital works this coming year, that it will be done so that this business
person can continue on with a successful business and that the people of the
Marystown-Georgetown area and surrounding area can have an adequate convenience
store, a service that is badly needed, the only one in that particular area.
Again, I present this petition on behalf of these people and hope, Mr.
Speaker, that their petition is heard and acted upon.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure today to present this petition to the House. It is being
presented on behalf of a very small, few people; in fact, eighteen people. I
draw the attention of the petition to the new Minister of Labour, because this
is something that I think he should give some full consideration to. I will just
read the prayer of the petition. It says:
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador amended the Workplace
Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Act under
section 65.1(1) to
reinstate benefits to a surviving spouses whose benefits terminated on or after
April 17, 1985 due to his or her remarriage; and
WHEREAS this amendment under
section 65.1(2) states that no interest shall be
paid on compensation which would have been paid from April 17, 1985 to December
31, 1992.
Mr. Speaker, when we passed this piece of legislation in the House - and I
think at the time on both sides of the House people spoke in favour of the
legislation - I really do not think anybody truly envisaged the impact this was
going to have, and the significance that it would have in the lives of a handful
of people.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are only eighteen people who are impacted by this
piece of legislation. They did, in fact, receive their retroactive pay. They
did, in fact, receive the full benefit, the compensation that they otherwise
would have been due, but what we failed to do at that time, as a Province, was
to provide them with interest payment on the money that we had owed them for
seven years.
Mr. Speaker, it is reasonable to expect that if someone owes you money for a
period of seven years - let me use this as an example: If these individuals had
owed the provincial government some money for a period of seven years, I suspect
that at the time when it was paid government would have demanded not only the
principal amount, but they would have demanded interest on that outstanding
balance for whatever period was in question.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that these eighteen people
are individuals who found themselves in a difficult situation when their spouses
were killed in an industrial accident. They found themselves having to rebuild
their lives. They found themselves penalized for a number of years because they
chose to remarry. The legislation of the day then automatically cut their
benefits upon remarriage. So, it is a reasonable thing to do, to change that
legislation to force the compensation to be paid regardless of the marital
status.
Mr. Speaker, that in itself required a challenge under the Human Rights
legislation to even have that put in place. So, these eighteen people and many
others in the Province have had a real struggle for a number of years in trying
to get their due benefits under this act.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1. The motion is: that this House approve
in general the budgetary policy of the government, the Budget Speech.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to an exciting, exhilarating and scintillating
debate from the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank government for that rousing introduction in welcoming me here
to debate on the Budget, on a very expensive ticket item. There are a couple of
pieces of business, and they are related to the Budget, that I want to get out
of the way first.
One was my response to a Ministerial Statement that relates to this fiscal
year, that I did not get leave from this government here to be able to finish. I
would like to be able to go in and explain to the minister what I have asked in
Question Period, because the minister could not or would not answer what I asked
in Question Period today. If I have to take half an hour or an hour to explain
this today, or two hours, I intend to do it, whatever is necessary -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: - because the people of the Province should be exposed to
complete transparency, not juggling figures up and down all over the place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Before I get too carried away with those fictitious figures
I see here, I want to address starting off here the Ministerial Statement the
minister gave in the House.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)
MR. SULLIVAN: I got interrupted, yes, Mr. Speaker, very rudely by
government. They did not want to hear what we said in a policy statement
released by myself and the leader on February 14, 2002, as it relates to
accountability that she is going to bring in this fiscal year she said. Well, I
will just let her know that our party has indicated they are going to bring in a
transparency and accountability act. We are going to legislate it. We are going
to legislate it. We are not going to legislate it and try to change it, like
they did with the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, bring it in on one
hand and try to tear it up on the other. No, not at all.
AN HON. MEMBER: We never did it.
MR. SULLIVAN: Not because you did not try. You tabled a bill. You tabled
a bill in the House!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: That minister sat in a Cabinet that tabled a bill to take
the money out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. The Minister of
Education, the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, was a party to a
conspiracy to rob Newfoundland and Labrador of the necessary funds in Labrador
for a road system in the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: He was a part of that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Environment Minister: whatever it was you will
be taken care of in due course. I say to the Member for Humber East, the
Environment Minister: his time will come.
Now, this act that we are taking about - and there was only a small page
taken from that act by this government. They only went part of the ways, just
scratched the surface, like they do with all their acts. That is why he is Mr.
Transparent. We can see right straight through it because the surface is only
touched.
The act states: We would "... require performance planning and reporting
for all government departments and agencies. This means: each department and
government-funded agency..."- and that was our policy, fourteen months ago
almost -"...will be required to present annual performance plans to the
House of Assembly on or before the date when the main budget estimates are
presented to the legislature." Before we even got those Estimates to the
Legislature. "The plan must include a statement of goals and specific
objectives, key strategies for achieving each goal and objective, costs and
benefits, and the performance measures that will be used to track results; and
at the end of each fiscal year, departments and agencies will be required to
table annual reports in the legislature..." Not just annual reports, but
annual reports that will "...compare actual performance results for the
fiscal year with expected results identified in their performance plans."
Basically, we have gone a lot further, way further. The minister stood today
and read out from a statement that said we are going to require to table plans.
Basically, all she is saying is that we are going to have annual reports for
department agencies. Do you know when reports from department agencies were
supposed to be tabled in this House? In 1989 - they were tabled up to then and
this government changed it in 1989 when they came into power. That was a
standard thing.
So what we are doing now after fourteen years - with an election coming - is
what previous PC governments have been doing and previous governments of this
Province have been doing for year after year. That is what they are going to do.
It is a farce. Do you think the people of the Province are going to be foolish
enough to accept - you took it all away and now you are going to give it back.
That is worst than the Premier standing here in the House and telling everybody
he believes in six terms, but only after the next election. He believe Cabinet
should only be one-third of the members of the Legislature, but only after an
election. It is 20 per cent bigger now. I do not believe in it now, I only
believe in it after an election. I cannot do it now. I have only three
backbenchers now who are not ministers, besides the four that went out; only
three left. One is the Deputy Speaker, one is the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Premier, and just one other. Also, one is the Whip; the only ones left. That is
it, all gone. Eleven people gone, dropped by the wayside with this government in
successive elections and by-elections. It is gone right down now to a very
narrow margin, I might add.
So they are not going to do things, what they said they want to do, until
after an election. The people would say: Why don't you do it now? If you
believe in it, do it now. You cannot have two sets of rules. You cannot preach
one thing and practise something different. You should practise what you preach.
Now, I want to get to the next thing, apart from this statement that the
minister read this morning, that is very weak, not near enough to go into
statements on accountability, I might add. I want to make reference to things I
mentioned here in Statement III in the Budget today. If you look at Statement
III in the Budget, it says: Reconciliation Of Budgetary Requirements To
Consolidated Accrual Budget. I asked the minister in the House today, I said
this is the first time in our history that we are seeing what we call a
consolidated accrual budget. The first time we are seeing this
schedule here
where we have Tangible Capital Assets. Now, there are two categories here or
areas of Tangible Capital Assets. There are Tangible Capital Assets that come
under the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or CRF as you see referred to here, and
farther down on that page you have the Tangible Capital Asset Adjustments (Other
Entities).
If you look at the first one, it says: Net Additions of Tangible Capital
Assets During the Year, $55,083,000. That is the net additions. I asked the
minister, I said this net addition that we see here of $55,083,000 and down at
the bottom of the page, the $73,955,000, that total of $129,038,000 we are
referring to as new entries on the consolidated accrual statement put forth here
in this Budget.
I asked the minister if she would explain this new policy on tangible capital
assets and she got up talking about what depreciation is. Well, we all know what
depreciation is. I do not think we need a lesson in depreciation. If you buy a
piece of equipment and it has a lifespan of ten years, or five years, or two
years, depreciation amounts are higher on equipment that have shorter lifespans.
Most people in the fishing industry would depreciate their boat, generally, I
think, at around 15 per cent. Some other equipment at 20 per cent and 30 per
cent. People in the industry, photocopiers from government buildings, you
depreciate. I would assume, brick buildings at a lower rate than you would
depreciate a wooden building that would have a shorter lifespan. There are
different depreciation rates applied.
The question I asked the minister: Would she tell this House what the policy
is? What would be our consolidated accrual deficit if these capital assets were
expensed rather than depreciated? Now, if you expensed them out, if you buy
something and it costs $10,000 and you pay for it as a renovation or expense and
you pay for it all in the one year, it is expensed out. If you decide to take
that $10,000 and you would depreciate that over a period of years, that is a
depreciation on that item. The minister either did not know or would not say,
and would not answer my question.
Now, with reference to that first question - anybody who is following in
their Estimates, in the very last
section of those Estimates, in Appendix IV, it
lists out all the details of capital expenditures. All the details for the first
$55,083,000 are here in the back of the Estimates book. I am sure he is
following there very intently because he knows that we are not getting the full
picture. We are not getting the answers. You either know it and will not tell
us, or the minister does not know, one or the other. It has to be one of two
choices.
On that, if you look down that list on Appendix III, there are five pages. On
the fifth page, you can see, at the very end, under Net Expenditure $55,083,200.
That should be the amount that is showing here on Statement III. In other words,
they have taken all of those assets, they have taken all of those $55 million
net additions of capital assets under the CRF - and it is here in Appendix I -
they have taken every one of these and they have depreciated them.
For example, what would you depreciate in salaries? There are salaries
subject to depreciation. How would you depreciate salaries? Probably because the
engineers, in the design of a building, have certain salaries, and therefore we
will allow that into the cost of the building and we will depreciate it? They
are the type of things I want to know from the minister. I want to know and be
able to find out these items. I am going to go through these items on page 256
in the Budget book. I will ask the minister. I will ask the questions and let
the minister answer them.
Under Consolidated Fund Services, it shows Related Revenue, of course, the
first item. I cannot see them depreciating the revenues. Hopefully they are not
going to do that. Then they have Various Facilities - Rental Purchase $101,400.
The have Issues Under Guarantee (Statutory) $99,000. Under Land Development,
they have revenues exceed the expenses, but under Works, Services and
Transportation, what did they do with these? How did they depreciate these? How
did they get that figure that I referred to in Statement III, if you look, on
the figure of $55,083,000? They only had the depreciation of $1,078,000;
$1,078,000 on $55,083,000 of assets. If you work that out, that is a
depreciation rate of 1.96 per cent. Now, how do we only get a depreciation rate
of 1.96 per cent? What did we do?
I am going to go through these departments, and maybe the Minister of Works,
Services and Transportation would tell me, in that category on page 256 in this
Budget, what the depreciation was. Because when you have $55 million and you
only have $1 million depreciation, all of it is being depreciated or all of it
is not. What are we depreciating? What is the rate at which we are depreciating
it? Tell us what you depreciated the Salt Storage Sheds, of $300,000, or the
Heavy Equipment, $3,375,000. What rate of depreciation have you used on that?
I want the minister to provide to me the breakdown. If not, we will get him
in Estimates. We will ask him again and again until we get these. We want to
know what rates they are applying to depreciation of these assets.
Administrative Support - Road Construction: $449,500. What type of
administrative support? Under Administrative Support, you see in the Budget,
there are different salaries and all these things. Are we depreciating those?
Are they exempt from depreciation? What, under Administrative Support? Is it a
photo copier, or a piece of machinery, or a calculator? What are they using in
depreciation here? We do not know. We have not been provided. We would like to
have it, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. We would
like to have a copy of the breakdown on each of these assets here.
We have Pre-Engineering - Road Construction, $650,000. We would like to know
what that is. We also have Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program, a net of
$8,145,000, a net expenditure. What type of depreciation are we using on highway
infrastructure? How long does a road last? What depreciation rate?
MR. REID: What do you need to know all of that for, Loyola?
MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Education, when you look at
Statement III on your Budget, the reason we need to know that is, when you have
$55,083,000 in tangible capital assets added to the sheet for this year and you
only show depreciation of $1,078,000 - 1.95 per cent - I am saying: How did you
apply it to get your accrual deficit? Maybe it is way higher. Maybe it is tens
of millions higher than you are showing. I would like to know how you arrived at
that. I would like the departments, and hopefully in the Estimates the members
in each department can go through this and ask them how did they arrive at that
depreciated amount right here? Because all these figures in Appendix III
coincide with, when you add them all up, it all adds up to the $55 million we
are seeing on Statement III, but we do not see any of the answers to questions.
I do not expect to have everything listed here, obviously. We do not expect
to see a breakdown and every one listed in this document, but at least the
minister could have stood and acknowledged rather than try to avoid the question
I asked and talk about something completely different. She explained what
depreciation is. That is what she explained. People know what depreciation is.
They know if they have a house and it was worth $100,000 and they have it for
five years -
PREMIER GRIMES: The question you asked today was probably the best one
ever asked in this Legislature (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier is saying that it was probably the best
question I asked. Is that one where nine plus six, I ask him, equals fifteen? I
will get to the matter of nine plus six equals fifteen.
MR. E. BYRNE: He was right, but we couldn't say the same thing about
the answer, could we?
MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you, the answer wasn't the best answer I have
ever seen in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: The answer is similar to a significant percentage of the
answers I have seen since I came in here to this House in 1992, I can tell you.
It is on a par with that. There was no answer. There was skating and more
skating. I think the Premier has given all of his ministers skating lessons, I
think that is what he is doing; he is giving them skating lessons, either figure
skating or general ice skating, whatever the case may be, but I can tell you
they are skating on pretty thin ice now and they had better come clean with the
people of this Province over the next while.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Because, like any spring, as the ice starts to thaw and
water shows around the edges, anybody caught out there is going to start
sinking, we can see, and that is when he will be looking for his Sinking Fund.
He will be cashing in his Sinking Fund, I would say, for this Province pretty
soon.
I have not even gotten through one department yet, on my question, and
already they are getting worked up over there. They are starting to feel the
guilt already. They cannot seem to answer the question.
Works, Service and Transportation on depreciation, why would Alterations and
Improvements to Existing Facilities - $6,225,000 is the net. I would like to
know collectively - and I could ask for each department - what is being expensed
out and what actually is subject to depreciation and the rates for each of
these?
If you look at Airstrips, it has $1 million in related revenue. Here is
something interesting, if expenditure is $1 million and we have related revenue
of $1 million that means it must have been federal money. Maybe there was no
input by the Province, I am assuming. Maybe the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation can answer that. Maybe he can answer on Ferry Terminals, $3.4
million, related revenue at $2.7 million, for a balance of $670,000. Is that
federal money that went into ferry terminals there? That is why it is a lower
amount, I would assume. I cannot see collecting that much revenue on a ferry
terminal on a user fee because the user fees are basically on the use of the
ferries, not on the use of the terminal, I would assume. That must be federal
money that went into this pot.
Maybe the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture can answer a question.
Fisheries Facilities, $100,000. Would the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation tell us the $100,000 that is in this budget on a depreciation, on
a tangible capital asset of $100,000, is that depreciated? What is the percent?
Maybe the minister could stand in her place and tell us that?
The Forest Resources and Agrifoods minister - we had $3.8 million in Resource
Roads Construction. How does this enter into Statement III in the Budget? When
we looked at an accrual budget we had to plug figures in on amounts and the rate
of depreciation. How is this $3.8 million depreciated? How long does a resource
road last? When might it need to be repaired or replaced? In five years, ten
years, twenty or thirty years? Like any highway, even a paved highway - I have
seen roads that are thirty years old and are in desperate shape. I have seen
roads twenty years old and are in bad shape. It depends on the usage. It depends
on the type of construction job you did in the beginning. I would like the
Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods to tell us that one.
Land Development; $200,000. How is that depreciated? I do understand - there
is an 01 here that says: Net acquisition of tangible capital assets include work
in process, land assets, which are not depreciable. In other words, land assets
are not depreciable. If you eliminate them from it, what does that leave you?
How much are land assets that are not depreciating? How much is left in the pot
that is subject to depreciation?
They are part of this budget. We did not have this before in the budget. We
did find it in Public Accounts every year. That is why I have been saying there
is only one true deficit for this Province. There is only one deficit. You can
look at your cash base. You can throw in the other entities on top of that. You
can look at - there is only one deficit. That is the crude deficit. That is it.
That is the only one. You are comparing apples and apples that you know where
you stand. That is the one that shows $666 million. I am asking questions now
and trying to find out if that shouldn't be higher. Are they showing the right
one? Should it be lower? Until we get answers, we don't know how they cost
those and we do not know how they depreciated those. I am sure there are other
ministers - the Industry, Trade and Rural Development Minister might like to
tell us, because there is one here from her department. Actually, there is a
Comprehensive Economic Development, a net of $405,900. Where does that fit into
the scheme? A Strategic Enterprise Development Fund of $263,500: Where does that
fit in? In her department, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development, the Member for Grand Bank, if she could tell us: Are these subject
to depreciation and what is the amount of depreciation on each of these? Could
you tell us, I say to the minister, and let us know what your department is
factoring in under that heading, or what is being done, generally, through
Finance and Treasury Board? In the preparation of these statements, what is
allocated to her department?
We know all about allocations to departments on the Premier's travel. They
were spread all over departments. Ministers didn't even know what was going
through those departments. It went not only under ministers traveling in those
departments or the Premier, it went down under other items, way down into Office
Expenditures. Why would you do that if you didn't want to hide it?
Now, under the Tourism, Culture and Recreation Minister - I might add, I am
only getting to questions I asked in Question Period today that I didn't get
an answer for. I want to get to main generalities, but I think these questions
to the ministers beg to be answered, to find out what their departments are
doing. If they don't know, they should find out. Maybe they can come back to
the House. They may want to stand up under Answers to Questions and give a
statement on it, or in the Estimates be prepared to give those particular
figures.
Tourism, Culture and Recreation has $1,779,500. For example, Community Sports
Facilities, $227,000: How has that been depreciated?
I am not passing judgement on whether something is or is not justified. That
is not my question. My question is: How are you accounting for what you spend?
Are you factoring in depreciation? Are you expensing items out? What are you
doing on each specific one?
Under Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation, $1 million in
the Budget for this year, how is that projected? What is it for? Is it subject
to depreciation? What is the amount of depreciation? Cultural Activities,
Historic Sites Development - there is also Park Development. There are National
Parks and Community Sports Facilities. There are some items here included, I
might add, Mr. Speaker, in each of these statements that we want to get answers
on.
In other areas there is major expenditure. My colleague, who is critic in
Education and Post-Secondary Education, the Member for St. John's East, under
his department, the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation
has a net expenditure of $5,050,000. I am sure he would like to know, and the
people in this Province would like to know, how you are calculating the amounts
to plug into the Budget. What way are they doing it?
Also, under Education, Native People's Education: Is that in salaries? Is
it subject to depreciation? The Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, another
net of $445,000. The total was $890,000. I think that is a fifty-fifty funding,
if I am not mistaken, there in education, that is shared. The CSIF, I think, is
a shared fund on a fifty-fifty basis, I am assuming.
AN HON. MEMBER: Which fund is that?
MR. SULLIVAN: That is the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund. The
Premier is wondering what it is for. We will find out in due course.
Provincial Information and Library Resource, $120,000. What type of library
resources? How are they depreciated? What is included in here? What depreciation
is given to salaries? I understand their salaries are being depreciated.
AN HON. MEMBER: What?
MR. SULLIVAN: Salaries.
AN HON. MEMBER: Salaries depreciated?
MR. SULLIVAN: I am asking the question: If you are going to build a
building and it costs $1 million, your engineering and design work were
$100,000, if they were $100,000, and that building is $1 million, the salaries
for engineering and design work were $100,000, wouldn't you depreciate the
whole million or leave out salaries? My understanding from this is that there
are areas that have salary depreciation. If not, why would Support Services?
There are salaries listed here in this total of fifty-five, and the question I
am asking, we have not been told what is subject to depreciation and what is
not. We have not been told.
PREMIER GRIMES: Ask it tomorrow in Question Period.
MR. SULLIVAN: I asked it today in Question Period and did not get an
answer. I say to the Premier, I asked it in Question Period today.
I am sure the minister is out now rushing back to get her figures so she can
stand up tomorrow in Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given, and
she will stand in this House and give me a whole list of all these
depreciations, because I will keep asking until I get it. I will keep asking
until I get it.
I can tell you one thing. One thing that is depreciating a lot more than 1.95
per cent, and that is the stock -
AN HON. MEMBER: The stock (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, the stock of the Premier and the Cabinet
Ministers is subject to great depreciation there. If that was f