Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 22 November 2005 (45th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLV No. 34)
2005-11-22
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 22, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV
No. 34
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member
for the District of Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for the District of
Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville; the hon.
the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; and the hon. the
Member for the District of Gander.
The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday night, in fact a week from
today, I had the privilege of attending a firefighters' meeting in Little
Catalina, in the District of Bonavista South, and at that particular time the
long-term services of five firefighters were recognized for contributing in
excess of thirty years of service by each one of them as a firefighter in Little
Catalina. Mr. Speaker, the names of the recipients were: Jeffrey Dalton, Gerald
Dalton, Clarence Day, Frank Johnson, and Derek Rideout.
It is very fitting that the provincial government, this government, as other
governments, have recognized the longevity of people volunteering their time as
firefighters in this Province. Firefighters today go beyond the call of just
fighting fires. In fact, I think we should soon name them emergency response
teams, when you look at what they contribute, especially in rural areas, where
they not only attend to and respond to emergencies but also are expected to go
out and raise funds to buy equipment and, in some cases, to even buy
firefighting trucks and build the fire halls that those trucks are placed in.
Mr. Speaker, I, today, would like to congratulate those five individuals, and
I am sure every member of this Chamber will allow me to say thank you on behalf
of every volunteer firefighter in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the year 2005 was designated as the Year of the
Veteran, a time for Canadians to reach out and give thanks to the men and women
who have served Canada in times of war and peace.
A celebration honouring those who fought in both World Wars and the Korean
War was hosted by District 2 of the Royal Canadian Legion in our area. It was
indeed a pleasure for me to participate with other members of this hon. House in
the planting of a Red Maple Tree, symbolizing the Canadian emblem and the
preservation of peace.
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge people from the various branches of the
Royal Canadian Legion that fall under District 2: Corp. Matthew Brazil, Branch
9, Spaniard's Bay; Harbour Grace, Branch 15; Upper Island Cove, Branch 22;
Carbonear, Branch 23; Sgt. Levi Hollett, Branch 39, Blaketown; Brigus, Branch
65; and, Bay Roberts, Branch 32.
Following the tree planting, there was a reception and a dinner honouring the
veterans held at the Royal Canadian Legion in Carbonear. During the dinner, a
number of presentations were made to veterans by myself and other hon.
colleagues in the surrounding districts that cover those Royal Canadian Legions.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say congratulations to all the members of those Royal
Canadian Legions for congratulating and celebrating with other fellow veterans,
not only from my district but all over this wonderful Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador, in the Year of the Veteran.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this House today to extend an invitation to my colleagues here in
the hon. House to attend the ninth annual Olympics of the North - the 2006
Labrador Winter Games.
This sporting and cultural event takes place every three years and is hosted
in the central Labrador town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Some 400 athletes and
community co-ordinators from as many as thirty communities will come together
from March 12-18, along with almost 650 volunteers, to celebrate the sporting
and cultural heritage of Labrador.
Contests will be held in the traditional skill-testing events such as Target
Shooting, Dog Sled Racing, Snowmobile Racing, Cross-Country Skiing, Snowshoe
Races, Northern Triathlon, Snowshoe Biathlon, and the Labrathon, which is a test
of the skill a trapper would need to survive in the bush in the Big Land. As
well, many more known events such as Ball Hockey, Volleyball, Darts, Badminton
and Table Tennis will take place.
Possibly the marquee event of the Labrador Winter Games would be the Northern
Games. This is a four-part competition held over two nights in a packed house at
the E. J. Broomfield Arena. This event is made up of the Labrador Hurdles, which
is a test of endurance. Over the Rope portion is a grueling test of both
strength and endurance as the athletes see who can pass over a taut rope the
most times. The Seal Race requires competitors to pull themselves along the
course using only their hands in a race format.
The final event is the One Foot High Kick in which athletes kick at a hanging
target of seven feet in the air at the outset of the event and increasing in
height until only one successful competitor is ultimately proclaimed the winner.
This meeting of the various peoples of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is the pride of
Labrador - and in the fellowship that these games inspire and, in most events,
second to none in our region and indeed, our Province.
Mr. Speaker, the game's Chairman, Dusty Miller, and the games board, along
with a very competent staff, are well underway on the work to ensure that the
games will be the best ever. March is a beautiful place in the Big Land and I
invite all members of the House and indeed, people throughout the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, to come to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and to experience
the 2006 Labrador Winter Games.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I wish to remind members that their statements, and members' statements,
should not exceed ninety seconds, a minute-and-a-half. We had one yesterday that
went considerably longer than that and the one we just heard now was
considerably longer than the standard time.
In fairness to all members, I ask members to constrain their comments to the
ninety seconds. The Speaker does not wish to interrupt during members'
statements; however, if he needs to, he will.
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House of Assembly today to
acknowledge the beginning of the Commonwealth Women's Parliamentarians of
Canada.
While many countries around the Commonwealth had organized and prided
themselves on very active women's Parliaments for many years now, Canada has
been lax in its efforts and failed through the years to form such a valuable
entity.
I am pleased to say that this has changed. As parliamentarians from all
across Canada met in our Province in July, our Speaker gave a full day of the
schedule to women parliamentarians to meet and to constitute the inaugural
meeting of the Commonwealth Women's Parliament. As you know, many great
initiatives in this country got its start in this young Easterly Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, on July 19, Newfoundland and Labrador took the
lead for all women parliamentarians, and for a stronger Parliament in general in
our country.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like extend to you my sincere
gratitude for your support of our women's Parliament. To this regard, you have
led by example and you have encouraged all speakers of legislatures across this
country to support the newly founded sector of our Parliament. It was through
your inspiring words at the Speakers Table of Canada that all provinces and all
territories have accepted and supported this process. As a result of your
efforts, the Canadian Parliamentary Association has now agreed to set aside one
day of its regional conference each year for women Parliamentarians in this
country to discuss their issues.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired.
Does the member have leave to conclude?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MS JONES: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for the length of my statement today,
but I think it is very important to acknowledge the inaugural meeting of the
Canadian Women's Parliament and the fact that it started this year in our
Province.
I would also like to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, and to thank all the women
that were involved in this process. I was very pleased myself to represent our
Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador at that meeting. I especially
would like to thank and acknowledge the contributions of two of my federal
counterparts, the Hon. Sam Builte and the Hon. Sue Barnes.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature will formally form our own branch
of the Canadian Women's Parliament tomorrow evening at a meeting called by
yourself Mr. Speaker.
In concluding, I would like to encourage all my female colleagues of the
Legislature to come out to that meeting and to get involved with the Canadian
Women's Parliament in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize
the life and accomplishments of a dedicated and compassionate Newfoundlander and
Labradorian. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Desmond Dillon of Gander was among the most recent
inductees into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Dillon is a renowned volunteer who has served the Canadian Red Cross,
Royal Life Saving Society, and the American Red Cross - to name just a few. He
has become a noted contributor to the global community, assisting with the
California earthquake, flooding in Manitoba, the Swissair disaster, the victims
of the Badger flood, and the efforts to help the displaced citizens from around
the world after September 11 attack. Most recently, Mr. Speaker, Katrina and the
New Orleans disaster.
Mr. Dillon is noted as being a humble man who seeks no recognition for his
outstanding accomplishments. In addition to his work all over North America, he
has provided great leadership to the Central Regional Health and Community
Services board from its inception to the present. As a social worker, he has
helped institute changes to the current child care legislation that have
bettered the lives of those in need and those who live in poverty in this
Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join me in
congratulating Mr. Desmond Dillon on his induction into the Order of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the hon. Members of the House of Assembly of
the progress in promoting our offshore oil and gas industry which was discussed
during the recent meeting of the Atlantic Energy Roundtable on Wednesday,
November 16.
As most people would be aware, the Atlantic Energy Roundtable brings together
my colleagues from other Atlantic provinces, federal cabinet ministers, as well
industry regulators, labour leaders, in an effort to build a strong and
sustainable future for the offshore oil and gas industry in Atlantic Canada and
indeed, in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Since its inception in 2002, both levels of government have worked to respond
to industry challenges without compromising our positions on benefits, safety of
operations, and the environment.
Among the important accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, resulting from this process
are: improvements to the regulatory system which directly reduces exploration
and development costs, and developing programs to build and enhance the
industrial supply and service capability.
At our meeting last week, the federal government announced amendments to the
regulations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, whereby future
offshore oil and gas exploratory drill projects would be subject to a more
efficient screening type of environmental assessment, rather than the current,
more lengthy, comprehensive type of assessment. I am pleased this decision was
taken on the basis of sound science and sound public policy. In our view, this
is another step forward in making our offshore area an attractive place for
exploration investment.
While there has been marked progress, we believe that much more can be done.
I took the opportunity last Wednesday to highlight the significant milestones in
Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore industry. In the last two years these
include the continued successes of Hibernia, Terra Nova; first oil at White Rose
- on-time and on-budget; the start of preliminary discussions on the development
of Hebron-Ben Nevis; the amount of seismic work that has occurred just this past
season in the Orphan and Laurentian basins; and, of course, the recent news of
more potential at the Hibernia field.
We have heard the concerns from industry and governments, and have moved
towards addressing them, Mr. Speaker. Now we believe it is time for industry to
step up to the plate and fully recognize the opportunities that are before us in
this Province.
We want industry to invest more in exploration activity. We want to see
another project go ahead, offshore Newfoundland and Labrador and we are in the
process of hoping to realize that eventuality. Our past record has indicated
that while industry may say our offshore is high risk, there have been proven,
successful results on our three producing fields.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to participate in
the Atlantic Energy Roundtable to: support ongoing government efforts to renew
and modernize the regulatory regime; to build a strategic approach to address
priority research and development; and to continue to strengthen our supply and
service capabilities.
We will also continue to use this forum to bring our concerns to industry and
to the federal government, and it is our hope through this open dialogue we will
see more exploration and, as a result, other projects developed, that will reap
optimal benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an
advance copy of his announcement today.
It is nice to see that this government finally is beginning to acknowledge
some of the successes that were made by the former Liberal Administration -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: - and which this government considers worthy of
continuation.
First of all, the Roundtable itself being created in 2002 was certainly
needed, i.e. you bring the stakeholders together in the industry. Instead of
having duplication, everyone who is concerned, whether it be federal government,
provincial government, the various energy ministers, the labour sector, get the
concerns on the table and you need not have all this red tape and duplication.
That was why it was started in the first place, and that is why it is a great
idea to continue it. It is a very constructive process. I applaud the government
for seeing that there was something worthy that was done by the former
administration, and that they will indeed continue.
You need to have streamlining of federal-provincial regulations, and again I
am pleased to see this administration acknowledge the success of the former
administration when it comes to the White Rose project, on time and on budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: A great project which is now reaping benefits for this
Province, because somebody put together a good package a few years ago.
Also, the Laurentian Sub-Basin arbitration which was done on the watch of the
Liberal Administration -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: - it is nice to see this government acknowledging the
success there. I applaud the government when they give credit when credit is
due, and they finally acknowledge that there are some things there, and I hope
the Roundtable continues for many, many years to come.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Now that we do have a maturing oil and gas development offshore, it is time
for us to examine exactly where we are going with this and what we are getting
out of it. We do know that the operating cost for a barrel of oil extraction on
the Grand Banks is one-fifth or less what it is on the tar sands, yet our
royalties are just the same. These things have to be examined, Mr. Speaker, for
the future.
Mr. Speaker, we are all very proud of the White Rose project's first oil
the other day. The good news about that is that most of the work was done right
here in Newfoundland and Labrador, engineering and fabrication, and that should
be the standard for the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: We do have some problems, Mr. Speaker, on the regulatory
side. I mean, yes, it is nice to streamline regulations but we haven't seen a
report, one year later on 160,000 litre oil spill off our shore this time last
year, yet to have a report as to what happened and what went wrong.
Mr. Speaker, there are things that do need to happen and can happen for the
benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador in our oil and gas industry as it develops.
One thing is, we would like to see more refining capacity in this Province. This
oil, in its raw state -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested. Leave is granted.
MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) further points, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
We do need to have more refining capacity in this Province. We see this
resource going straight out of the Province to other parts of North America,
unprocessed and unrefined. We would like to see more of that happen here.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on the gas side, we haven't seen any development
yet, although there is some interest. There are some very innovative processes
now being talked about and proposed that can see us have natural gas liquids
from that reserve actually brought to this Province and processed right here
into further developments and further economic activities.
So, these are the kinds of exciting prospects that are there, Mr. Speaker,
but it requires a lot of work and a lot of determination on the part of the
government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to make this happen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize November 22 as National Housing Day.
In support of this event, this morning I joined community and corporate leaders
in the launch of Raising the Roof 2006, downtown St. John's. Through the sales
of toques, this national fundraising campaign helps to serve those most at risk
for homelessness in our Province and, indeed, the country.
Mr. Speaker, I did take the liberty of taking forty-eight toques with me to
the House of Assembly today for all forty-eight members so that you can all
purchase them after the House session today at $10.
That there are still people in this day and age without a roof over their
heads is a source of concern to all members of our society. The need for
housing, not to mention the warm head wear, in a climate such as ours is
abundantly clear.
It is up to all of us to act to close the door on homelessness. The key to
achieving this goal is to develop community awareness. Raising the Roof is
Canada's only national homelessness charity, and last year, Newfoundland and
Labrador raised $14,000 to support this campaign. Elected officials, government
employees, and volunteers alike, recognize housing as a basic human need.
Throughout the winter, as we wear our Raising the Roof toques, we will be
reminded of those without a home.
Mr. Speaker, proceeds from this year's toque sales will go to four shelters
and supportive housing providers in St. John's: the Stella Burry Community
Services, the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador, the St. John's
Native Friendship Centre Association, and the Salvation Army. These
organizations have recently built or are building new shelters and supportive
housing in St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, let me reaffirm that this government is indeed committed to the
cause of helping the homeless. Along with the federal government, we have
invested millions of dollars in community based homelessness projects in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We work closely with many of our partners and
community organizations involved with this campaign.
In 2004-2005, in partnership with the federal government, Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation spent approximately $100 million in support of
social housing programs in Newfoundland and Labrador. In St. John's alone,
under NLHC's Shelter Enhancement Program, some $300,000 has been provided
through partnership with groups such as: the Stella Burry Corporation, Choices
for Youth, the Kirby House and Lebra House. Other properties which have been
provided funding under the affordable housing program include the Salvation Army's
Wiseman Centre here in St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, we have also announced an increase in the minium wage in our
Province. We continue to provide income support in career services. We are
finalizing our property reduction strategy. Even so, we much continue to work
together towards addressing the homelessness.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador, I extend congratulations and appreciation to everybody involved with
the St. John's Community Advisory Committee on homelessness and to everyone
involved with Raising the Roof campaign. Quite simply, your work is making a
difference in the lives of those who need it most and we are proud of your
efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, but I can assure
you, he read out more information than was on the statement that I was
delivered. Anyway, I got the gist of it.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to stand - I am glad that our hon. Deputy Premier
is in good form again today. I want to congratulate the minister for his
involvement in this initiative. It is a good program. I can assure you, we, on
this side of the House, support it 100 per cent. We ask the people all
throughout this Province to support the sale of the toques this year. We hope
that more than $14,000 will be raised this year to help those people.
I, too, want to congratulate the four groups that are listed here: the St.
John's Native Friendship Centre, Stella Burry Community Services, the AIDS
Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Salvation Army. They do
tremendous work and now they are carrying on providing shelters and so on.
Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that all of this is wonderful but we, all of
us together collectively, have to look at the problems that are encountering.
Homelessness is becoming even a bigger problem in our Province. We have to look
at our safety nets; that it is not downgraded. We have to address the roots,
where homelessness comes from. Some of them is unemployment; addictions, whether
it be drugs, alcohol or VLTs. We know that government is reducing the VLTs by 15
per cent, but we are bringing in KENO.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister, and we on this side
congratulate all those involved in this program.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our copy of the minister's statement does not jive with what the minister
read either; but, having said that, we would like to wish government and the
people involved a successful campaign on the sale of the toques.
Not that many years ago, Mr. Speaker, in our Province, homelessness was
something that we read about in the papers, that occurred in other cities.
Today, unfortunately, it is here in our Province at an alarming number.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister what he has done, or his
department has done, to access money from the federal government of a $30
million program for housing that was announced prior to his government taking
over. Also, what has government done to access any funding from the $100 million
NDP budget that was negotiated with the federal government not that long ago?
What have they done in order to access the funding there?
We, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to thank the groups that are identified as
being involved, helping people who are homeless, and that includes the St. John's
Native Friendship Centre, Stella Burry Community Services, the AIDS Committee of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and The Salvation Army, Mr. Speaker, who, of course,
are active throughout most every community within our Province and do fantastic
work.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, Memorial University's Harris Centre released a
report on federal government presence in Newfoundland and Labrador. The report
provides an independent confirmation of the positions this government has
advanced with the federal government on this issue. While I encourage all
members to review the report in full, I wish to highlight today a few of the
report's findings.
With respect to federal employment, the report - this independent report -
confirms that Newfoundland and Labrador has taken more than its fair share of
reductions. Over the study period, from 1981 to 2004, federal employment in this
Province declined by 25 per cent, compared to a 5 per cent drop nationally.
In August of this year, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, released data
which focused on the period between 1990 and 2004. During this period, federal
employment in the Province declined by 39 per cent, compared to a decrease of 18
per cent across all provinces. As my hon. colleague rightly pointed out, had
this Province experienced an 18 per cent decline only, there would be an
additional 2,800 people working in our Province today. It is important to note
that this disturbing decline came at a time when our economy was struggling as a
result of the groundfish stock collapse.
The report's findings on federal executive positions in the Province also
warrant special attention. Our Province had the lowest number of these positions
across all provinces over the period 1997 to 2004, and the province's share of
federal executives was substantially less than its share of the national
population. Nova Scotia, with less than twice the population of our province,
has four times as many executive positions. P.E.I. and Newfoundland have almost
the same number of executive positions, notwithstanding the fact that
Newfoundland and Labrador has four times the population.
Mr. Speaker, regrettably, the trends identified by these numbers continue to
be reflected in decisions by the federal government. This Province has stood
united against federal decisions such as the removal of forecasting services
from the Gander Weather Office and the impending closure of the Public Service
Commission of Canada's provincial office. Faced with an independent
confirmation of our concerns, it is clear that the federal government must begin
to rebuild its presence in this Province. This government stands ready to work
co-operatively and collaboratively with the federal government to increase
federal presence in ways that serve the interests of both Newfoundland and
Labrador and of Canada, so that we can realize the dream that all of us share of
a proud and prosperous Newfoundland and Labrador within a strong and united
Canada.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I would certainly like to thank the
Harris Centre for undertaking an independent study of this critically important
issue.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. I encourage
him to continue to fight with the federal government to protect services and
jobs in this Province. It is an age-old problem, as the minister said. Even in
this study alone they talked about going back to 1981. What I have found, my
experience has been, it does not seem to matter whether it is a Tory government
in Ottawa or Liberal government in Ottawa; the cuts continue. Two of the main
ones, at least from my perspective, representing a rural riding based in the
fishery, are the cuts to the science branch of DFO and other divisions at DFO as
well as the closing of the Gander Weather Office.
What I find hypocritical about this government up today talking about cuts to
the federal civil service in the Province is, just in the last two years they
have eliminated hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of jobs in the civil service
in this Province and they have cut many services to the people in parts of rural
Newfoundland and Labrador. I will just mention a few: the closure of HRE offices
around the Province; the closure of highway depots, and we have seen the results
of those kind of closures and cuts just recently. We see courthouses go. We see
school board offices, health care boards being eliminated, weigh scales, and the
list goes on and on. So, I say to the minister, you should look in the mirror
sometimes when you are condemning others. You should look in the mirror and see
what you are doing yourself.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This report confirms what has been well known in this Province for some time,
and Labrador in the form of employment is nothing short of disgrace, and that is
symbolized by the recent departure of the Public Service Commission from this
Province, the very organization that gives people access to federal jobs and
provides an opportunity for people to get resumes considered or to obtain
information, taken away from this Province within the last year. As the report
points out, over the last number of years, 25 per cent of the federal jobs have
gone. It is an absolute disgrace.
I would urge this government to do what it did on the eve of the last
election, and ask the federal parties and the federal leaders to give their
commitment to this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for the upcoming
election as to what they propose to do to try and redress this disgrace, redress
this wrong, because it is something that shows a level of disdain for the people
of this Province when it comes to federal employment -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: When it shows, Mr. Speaker, is that not only have we lost
more jobs than the rest of Canada during this period, but when employment
started increasing across the country by about 12 per cent, the increase in this
Province was only 1 per cent. So, this shows a definite, not only a trend but
are fewer federal civil servants in this Province than there are in the rest of
the country. That has to stop and that has to be fixed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Yesterday, I referenced a media report from the Eastern Daily Express ,
a British newspaper that discussed FPI's recent purchase of the seafood
company in Great Britain. In the article, it stated that these operations would
grow and expand as a result of FPI importing Canadian fish for processing to
Great Britain. Nowhere in this
article did it say that these operations would be
processing shrimp from Canada. The only reference to shrimp was warm water
shrimp and, I say to the minister, we do not have warm water shrimp in the North
Atlantic.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister now tell me if FPI intends to ship shrimp from
Newfoundland and Labrador to Great Britain for processing?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I take no responsibility for any
article
written in some press in the United Kingdom. What I know is that FPI is making a
concentrated effort to break into the largest cold water shrimp market in the
world, which is the United Kingdom, and cold water shrimp is what FPI intends to
market in Great Britain and in other parts of the European Union.
The other thing I say to the hon. gentleman is this: The same rules and
regulations that were attached to licences when he was a minister and when the
Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was a minister are attached to licences
today, and that is this: No shrimp can go out of this Province, once it is
landed in the Province, without being cooked and peeled in this Province, and
that has not changed and will not change, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are finally getting a response from the minister.
Mr. Speaker, the only way to avoid a tariff on shrimp going into the European
Union is to have it processed in Europe. Is this what FPI intends to do with its
offshore quota for shrimp? Not the stuff that is landed by FPI and processed
here in the Province, but, as you know, Minister, FPI has two licences for 6,000
tons of shrimp. Is that the shrimp you are talking about that is going to be
going into the EU for further processing?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, that and more. FPI markets for Daley's, FPI
markets shrimp for Beothic Fisheries.
MR. BARRETT: Not any more.
MR. RIDEOUT: They do so.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman for Bellevue never knew what he was talking
about, and he certainly does not know today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, they market for shrimp companies in Quebec, for
other shrimp processors in this Province, for a whole array of processors, Mr.
Speaker, so that is where they are trying to go with this and that is why this
move is good for the industry and it is good for rural Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that the biggest problem
we are having with shrimp going into the EU is the 20 per cent tariff on cooked
and peeled shrimp.
Mr. Speaker, last night I spoke to three processors in this Province who
process shrimp and they all agreed that the only way that FPI could get shrimp
into the UK or into the European Union without a tariff was to have the shrimp
processed in Europe.
This morning, I spoke to Mr. Patrick McGuinness of the Fisheries Council of
Canada - and I can give you his telephone number if you want it - and he
confirmed what these processors said, that the only way we could get shrimp into
the U.K. by avoiding the tariff was to have it processed in the U.K.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How will shipping of unprocessed shrimp to
Great Britain help create jobs in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, FPI's marketing strategy, by acquiring this
company in Great Britain, is to do something about the 20 per cent tariff. There
is no question about that. The shrimp will go into the United Kingdom cooked and
peeled, as I said. When you get it into the United Kingdom, in order to qualify
for a reduction from 20 per cent to 6 per cent, which is an advantage, by the
way, of 14 per cent - and the Leader of the Opposition said publicly there was
no advantage at all - you have to do something else with it. For example, in the
past it has been brined, for example, in the Netherlands. That could be done by
this company in Great Britain. That would qualify that product for a lower
tariff in Europe. That is the kind of strategy, Mr. Speaker, this company is
working on, that is the kind of strategy that will help impact positively the
shrimp production and processing in this Province, in rural parts of this
Province, and that is why it is worthy of support.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: (Inaudible) what he is talking about. Companies in this
Province have tried to do exactly what he is saying, by taking processed shrimp
from this Province and having it glazed in the EU, but it didn't work. We can't
avoid the tariff. Nothing of what you just said is going to help lower the
tariff on shrimp going in from that Province.
Mr. Speaker, to change gears just a little: Last spring on the Fisheries
Broadcast, when asked a question on what the future entailed for FPI in this
Province, Mr. Derrick Rowe, the CEO of FPI, stated that FPI will become a
shellfish operation. That is what he said, that the future for FPI will be a
shellfish operation.
I ask the minister: If this is the case, what will happen to Fortune,
Marystown and Burin? Have you discussed the future of these towns with the Board
of Directors of FPI?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, here is what is not going to happen. Is any
fish being shipped into Europe for processing the fish that was traditionally
processed in Newfoundland and Labrador? I asked the Opposition in the press
release yesterday, Mr. Speaker. No there is not, no there is not going to be.
What is happening here relates to shrimp only, shrimp processed in this
Province, shrimp processed by FPI, shrimp processed by other processors in the
Province, and it is a marketing strategy for Europe.
Mr. Speaker, we should be wishing the company success, we should be hoping
that the company succeeds, so that they can create employment and sustain
employment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to FPI, the members of their board and their
acting CEO, about Fortune, about Harbour Breton, about Bonavista, about Port au
Choix, about Marystown, about everywhere that they operate in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: And what did you find out?
Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not told the people of this Province how
the purchase of this plant in Great Britain is going to benefit the people in
this Province. He is not going to bring processed shrimp from Newfoundland and
Labrador into the EU and avoid a tariff by doing it.
Mr. Speaker, when in Opposition, this minister and his colleagues accused us
of doing nothing to monitor FPI. I can tell the minister that when FPI tried to
lay off 700 people, they did not do it under our watch. That is more than I can
say is happening under your watch.
I ask the minister: Why is this government being so lax with regard to
monitoring FPI and allowing this company to do everything they want with their
operations, including taking our products to the UK for processing?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, not because the Opposition say something is a
fact it is a fact. As a matter of fact, when the Opposition says something is a
fact in this Province - Mr. Speaker, Russell Wangersky had it right: when this
hon. crowd puts out a press release quoting something to be a fact, you had
better employ somebody to go research it.
This Opposition, in my almost thirty years in this House, is the most
irresponsible, the most ineffective, the most uncaring, the worst Opposition,
Mr. Speaker, in thirty years in Newfoundland and Labrador!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind all members that our time is elapsing.
The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries can use those old-time political
antics all he wants, of screaming, shouting, and insulting people, but I will
tell the minister that I am going to continue to ask the questions on behalf of
the people of this Province and we will get the answers even if they do not come
from you!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members for their co-operation.
The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, he talks about Mr. Wangersky. Mr. Wangersky is having the same
problem with that government as I am, that he cannot get an answer from them.
That is the reason he is taking you to court, to get information that you will
not release to him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, outside of this House, this Minister of
Fisheries said that an inquiry into FPI would not happen before the company's
internal review was complete. He continuously states that he is all over the
file; yet, he is allowing the company to do a review that could result in plant
closures and hundreds of jobs lost. What kind of oversight is this on behalf of
the government?
I ask the minister: If you are all over this file, why are you not willing to
do an inquiry before it is too late, before plants are closed and people are
laid off? (Inaudible) you are all over the file?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I sat in this House in 1982 with an Opposition
that was decimated to eight people, but with John Efford they were more
effective than all that hon. crowd put together.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I said in this House yesterday that there may
be grounds for an inquiry. I am not saying there will not be at the end of the
day, but neither am I prepared to say today that there will be an inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, as the general public are well aware, our
highways are not maintained to the same level as they have been in past years.
With the closure of thirteen depots, and the layoff of over 100 workers, it has
a detrimental effect on our highways. The former minister stated on November 7,
2005, that equipment operators on the West Coast were called back, and on the
Avalon should be recalled by next week. The current minister has stated that the
workers in the Avalon region will not be called back to work until December 1,
and only 80 per cent of equipment is operational. Which minister has given the
correct information - the current minister or the former minister?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, here is an example of integrity in research.
The hon. gentleman who just asked the question is the worst researcher that I
have ever come across in my political career. The fact of the matter is - first
fact, Mr. Speaker, there is not a depot closed down in this Province today that
was not closed down last year. All the depots that were winterized are now back
on stream. Second fact, all of the employees who were put on temporary layoff -
101 or 102 of them, whatever it was - every single one of them have been
recalled. Therefore, nothing that the hon. gentleman said was factual but that
do not surprise me, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. gentleman would not want the
truth or a fact to stick in the way of what he is trying to do here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I just wish that was all backupable', what
the minister just said, because I cannot find it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, to justify the closure of these thirteen depots,
the former and current minister has given many different versions of events to
justify the lack of maintenance on the highways equipment. With the winter
season upon us, snow and ice is on our roads and I ask the minister: How many
positions which would be working on the maintenance of highways are not filled
in the maintenance department of the Department of Transportation and Works?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, here is what is backupable': We have spent
$40 million more on highway maintenance and pavement in this Province than that
hon. crowd did!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: We have a $50 million program to resurface 25 per cent of
the Trans-Canada Highway. Backupable', Mr. Speaker!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: We are spending $40 million on the construction of the
Trans-Labrador Highway. Backupable', Mr. Speaker!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: We, Mr. Speaker, have gotten the Trans-Labrador Highway into
the National Highway System.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: We have gotten Botwood into the National Highway System,
parts of Route 430 into the Trans-Canada Highway system, all backupable',
and we are proud of it!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, if this wasn't such a serious issue, I guess we
all could laugh.
When I have in my hand nineteen positions for maintenance workers who are
supposed to be back on highways, protecting our equipment, putting our equipment
on our roads, when I am out in the Bay of Island this last weekend with four
pieces of equipment down because there is no one to do the work, it is not
laughable, Mr. Minister. It is not laughable, I can assure you that. You can
rant and rave, but go out on the highways and check it out yourself.
Mr. Speaker, following reports that were in the public domain on the Argentia
Access Road, the minister stated publicly, by reading the accident report, that
the road was dry. It was later found out that the report submitted by the
supervisor indicates that this was not the case.
I want to ask the minister to table the actual report on the road conditions
that morning, to show that the information he is putting out is, indeed, based
upon facts at the time. Will he table that report here in this House today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, that will be a decision for the present
minister and I will certainly make sure that the minister understands that
request was made here in the House today.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see the minister is finally getting serious and realizes the
seriousness of this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the truck from Placentia that is supposed to do
the roads was broken down due to the broken lights. Like in other regions of the
Province, this truck was not operational due to staffing cutbacks and late
recalls in the department that prevented maintenance from being done earlier.
Will the minister produce to the House the work order that shows the
maintenance to this vehicle was not completed and it was not inoperable at the
time?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when serious questions are raised by the Opposition they will
get serious answers. When questions are laced with political rhetoric, political
innuendo, things that are not facts, untruths, irresponsible statements, they
will be answered by this side in the same vein.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman is getting on with there, again, is
not factual.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I said it is not factual and therefore, the
maintenance work has been done. There is maintenance to be done all the time.
Let me tell the hon gentleman, we doubled the budget for capital equipment
acquisition this year, from $3.25 million to $6.5 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: There are thirty new pieces of equipment, Mr. Speaker!
AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.
MR. RIDEOUT: Prove it? There are thirty new pieces of equipment being
delivered to the Province as we speak. It did not happen on their watch, Mr.
Speaker. The roads were falling apart; the equipment was falling apart. Nothing
(inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker recognizes the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Minister, when the Stephenville mill issue came to the forefront this past
summer it was primarily over the energy cost issue, and there were two parties
involved: Abitibi and government. This cumulated into the framework agreement
which was announced on October 26, which government unilaterally announced and
then walked away, only to watch the company bring the union into the fray and
attempt to strip the union contract.
What have you, or your government, done since October 26 to bring this to an
end? The Premier is touted as a great negotiator. When are you going to close
this deal and stop the torture of the employees in that community?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what is going on in Stephenville between the company and their
union, really - and I will quote the Leader of the Opposition on a television
interview - is basically torture of a people in a region.
First of all, the assumption that you make, I say to the Opposition House
Leader, that this is somehow our ability to close this, is incorrect. We have
done what was necessary in order to keep that mill open, supported by the local
community, supported by the local union, I say to members opposite, and that is
the framework agreement that we put forward.
I agree, also, I say to the Opposition House Leader, as the Premier and
myself and my colleague, Minister Burke, and my colleague, Mr. Hodder, have said
to the union in Stephenville time and time again that this government is not
going to participate with a corporation like Abitibi to put pressure on the
unionized employees to go in and strip a contract, or attempt to strip a
contract, that was duly negotiated a year ago.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this, that we are in touch on a daily
basis with those who are involved, particularly our unionized officials. The
negotiation is ongoing between the employer and the employee, but I want to
assure everyone in the Stephenville region, in particular the unionized
employees and those who depend for their livelihoods on it, that this government
did exactly what we were supposed to do. We anted up for the people in
Stephenville and we are not going to stand by and watch a company (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Not good enough. The Premier has washed his hands of this file now. He does
not want to be all over this file any longer. Government cannot wash its hands
of the file and you cannot simply say we tried. To try and not to succeed still
adds up to failure.
When are you going to close this deal? When will the people of this Province,
and in particular, the people of Stephenville, know that they have some hope?
What are the options? Will you tell the people of this Province and the people
of the Bay St. George area, what are the options and what are you doing minister
to close this deal?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition need to come to a truthful conclusion on
where they are. The middle of August, the Leader of the Opposition says:
essentially, we must do whatever is necessary, as a government, to ensure there
is a power contract. Quoted in statements that I can table for him if he wants
to see them - which we did. We entered into that arrangement. We provided
exactly what the company was looking for with respect to a power arrangement,
which was a net $10 million benefit a year.
The day that we announced that, the Leader of the Opposition - I suppose he
represents everybody over there - gets out and says that he has a bitter taste
in his mouth because he did not think we should do that. So, which is it? The
fact of the matter is - which is it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: Do we support the arrangements or do we not? Because if it
was left in his hands we would not even be in a position to talk about it today.
The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the
negotiations that are going on behind or between the employer and the unionized
officials, the unionized officials and bodies in that mill understand intimately
where this government is, and that is squarely behind them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The latest financial data, public information, put out by Abitibi, indicated
that the company has already taken a write down on certain company assets, which
includes the Stephenville assets. Does this mean the company has written off
Stephenville? Has government also written off Stephenville? If not, when is
government going to stop what has been its ostrich mode since October 26, take
its head out of the sand and speak to Abitibi and get this moving again?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this government has always doubted the
sincerity with respect to the company's objectives. That is why we have
challenged them both publicly and privately, and will continue to do so. But
what the people in the Stephenville region need not be concerned about was:
Where were we? We anted up. We made an arrangement that keeps, what we felt, was
the (inaudible) from Abitibi.
The fact of the matter is this, that if you want to look at the type of
corporation we are dealing with, I say to my hon. colleague, look at what they
did in your own colleague's district just two weeks ago. On one Monday, they
went in and said: We are keeping Number 7 machine going for two years and we are
going to make a $60 million investment. That was on one Monday. On the second
Monday, another spokesperson comes out and says: There must be some
misunderstanding here. The fact of the matter is, that on one Monday they went
in, in good faith, told the union locals, the community leadership and then the
Concerned Citizens Committee one thing and then told us that as well, and on the
following Monday told a completely different story. That is the type of company
we are dealing with. I ask you, and members opposite, we have done whatever we
can and will continue to do whatever we can but members in this House must stand
against -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: - (inaudible) companies of this nature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
Mr. Speaker, the minister, about half-an-hour before the House started,
announced a program on residential energy efficiency that will not start until
January in some cases, in February in other cases, of next year, which is worth
about $7 million over five years; a total program for this Province of about
one-third of what Nova Scotia has done.
Why did the minister wait until now to do it, and what thermometer is he
operating on so that he is going to wait until January or February of next year
to have an energy efficiency program for houses in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the member for his question, but I have to correct some inaccuracies,
Mr. Speaker.
The program that was announced in this Province for the energy conservation
portion of the program is $6.9 million. The program announced in Nova Scotia for
energy conservation is $10 million. They have twice the population we do. Our
per capita spending for the same program is $13,
whereas theirs is $11. We are
in a better position than Nova Scotia for the program that I have announced
today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The program in Nova Scotia was $25 million for home rebate and efficiency
programs, and is being all spent at once. He is talking about something over a
five-year period, which works out to about $1.2 million or $1.4 million this
year, starting some time in January and February.
The Nova Scotia program and the P.E.I. program have elements such as a free
energy audit, a free programable thermostat, and also, in some cases, in the
case of P.E.I., for example, someone trained already, since October, going into
your home and performing an actual upgrade. Why didn't he choose elements like
that, Mr. Speaker, that could actually deliver this program before the winter
heat season gets really upon us?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this program that we are announcing is a
long-term plan, it is a multiple-year plan. The program in Nova Scotia, as well,
is a multiple-year plan. We are announcing $6.9 million on energy conservation,
$9 million on rebates, which puts us very close to what Nova Scotia is
announcing when you take out the $10 million that they have put aside for
upgrading government buildings. What we are doing for upgrading government
buildings is in a different pot of cash, not included in the Residential Energy
Efficiency Program that we have announced today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the P.E.I. program, started over a month ago,
has already trained individuals who are available to go into people's houses,
do the energy upgrade, and probably have already completed the energy upgrade in
many cases, long before the heavy home heating season has started. Why did this
government wait until now, and why are they putting it off until January and
February of next year? Are they trying to save money? Are they trying to
postpone spending money? Why aren't they doing what is needed for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador right now?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The program that we have announced today will start in less than two months
from now. I think the program that we have announced today is a very solid
program; it is a very effective program. The program that we have announced
today is a multiple-year program. We have put together an interdepartmental
committee that is chaired by my department to look at how we can add to the
program for next year.
Mr. Speaker, the program that we have announced today is tied - as well, the
$1000 top-up is tied to the federal program, which does not start until January
of 2006. They are providing $3,500 for residents on the Island, $5,000 for
residents in Labrador. We have agreed to top that program up by $1,000, and that
is the reason for the time frames.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I have just the one question, and very straightforward question, directed to
the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I ask the minister: Where is
the watch, and where is the appraisal?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to that, the watch is in my
possession.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the minister.
MR. HEDDERSON: I am trying to give a timely response here, Mr. Speaker,
in saying to the hon. member on the other side, that watch is in my possession -
a watch that was given to me as a protocol gift, as a Minister of the Crown; a
watch that I received graciously; a watch that I certainly took great pleasure
in receiving by the very fact that it was given to me on behalf of the
Government of Qatar. It is still in my possession.
Again, through the conflict of interest that I have put in last March, the
hon. member knows that the commissioner has indicated that there was nothing
that I did improperly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated for Question Period has expired.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I did not want to interrupt Question Period, but I have to bring to your
attention a statement made by the Government House Leader.
In an earlier statement, he said that I made a comment that government should
not make an agreement with Abitibi that entailed giving the company $150
million.
Mr. Speaker, at no time did I ever make that comment. I ask the minister to
rise now and withdraw this statement because it is completely false.
MR. SPEAKER: I assume the member is rising on a point of order to make
his statement. I am not sure whether there is any response to the point of order
from the government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: In this particular matter, members will know that there are
occasions when points are made in the House that the Chair cannot verify these
comments, and the point of order fails because sometimes we have to accept two
different versions of the same event in these particular matters, so the Chair
rules there is no point of order.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees. Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Dietetics". (Bill 51)
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act Respecting Dispensing Opticians." (Bill 52)
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act Respecting The Registration And Licensing Of Hearing Aid
Practitioners". (Bill 53)
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act Respecting The Licensure Of Practical Nurses". (Bill 54)
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act Respecting The Practice Of Massage Therapy". (Bill 55)
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a
bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Occupational Therapists". (Bill 56)
I give notice that I will on tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, ask leave to introduce a
bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Registration Of Psychologists".
(Bill 57)
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act To Amend The Optometry Act, 2004". (Bill 58)
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a
bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act". (Bill 59)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion. Answers to Questions for which
Notice has been Given. Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on the topic I presented one
on yesterday which is Sunday hunting.
The petition reads, Mr. Speaker:
WHEREAS hunting on Sunday is not permitted in our Province; and
WHEREAS there are many people in our Province who work Monday to Friday,
leaving them only one day a week to hunt; and
WHEREAS hunting is probably the only activity that people of our Province are
prohibited from doing on Sunday; and
WHEREAS not being able to hunt on Sunday has a negative impact on local
hunters and outfitters;
We the undersigned residents petition the House of Assembly to direct the
government to change the regulations of this Province to allow hunting on Sunday
to take place.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday on this topic and I used a few examples as to
how people are inconvenienced when they are not permitted to hunt on Sunday. Mr.
Speaker, it also plays a big role in the outfitters of this Province as well,
when they have people who pay big dollars to come to this Province to hunt, and
they hire a lot of people to work in their -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Labrador West. I
wonder if members could keep their conversations at a lower level so we can all
enjoy the hon. member's presentation.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, these outfitters employ a lot of people in this Province for
short durations, particularly during the fall and winter season. Not being able
to hunt on Sunday certainly creates a problem for them as well; but, more to the
point - and I know there are some people who may be against hunting on Sunday,
but I think the minister, through his department and in collaboration with other
Members of the House of Assembly, can come to some arrangement that will be
suitable to all.
I ask the minister to undertake to do this as soon as possible because the
hunting season for this year, for big game on the Island, is drawing to a close;
however, the hunting for big game in Labrador is only about to begin and will
carry on throughout the winter. So, it is important that the minister take
action on this immediately so that we are not subject to the same rules and
regulations that we have been for the past number of years, whereby you travel a
great distance on a Friday night, you hunt all day Saturday without success, and
on the way back Sunday morning you are 100 miles from anywhere, the only people
you will run into, if anyone, are other hunters. If you happen to see big game
on your way back, simply because it is Sunday, you are not allowed to take your
gun out of the case and get your animal. That does not make sense, Mr. Speaker,
and it is time that this government recognize that and introduce the change that
is necessary so that people are allowed to hunt on Sundays, in accordance with
the change in the regulation.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think we are going to begin some progress on second readings this
afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Order 11, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The
Financial Administration Act. (Bill 46)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 46,
An Act To Amend The
Financial Administration Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial
Administration Act." (Bill 46)
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Government House
Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition said that I had made an
accusation that he never supported the arrangement. I do want to make an apology
to the Leader of the Opposition. It was not him who said it. It was his
colleague, Yvonne Jones - so I do apologize - when she said: I don't think we
are in any position in this Province to be offering out $200 million or $300
million to prop up any company.
I apologize, Sir. It was not you who said it; it was your colleague from
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, again the Chair rules that there is no point of order;
however, the Chair appreciates any clarifications that can be made.
The Chair has called second reading of Bill 46,
An Act To Amend The Financial
Administration Act.
I recognize, I do believe, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of this amendment is very brief. It is just to clarify the
current wording of the act. In fact, we feel the authority is there under the
Loan Act already. It has been an area where it has occasionally been raised, and
certainly in the AG's report, whether it should be included as a provision
under the Financial Administration Act. This will eliminate the requirement to
include it in the Loan Act, and it will authorize the borrowing authority for
sinking fund purposes. When you borrow for a sinking fund, really, in a sense,
it is debt retirement; because, as you borrow for sinking funds, the sinking
funds are put aside to go toward debt retirement, so it is very straightforward,
a housekeeping rule.
I do not have any further comments. It is only a one-paragraph aspect and it
is very straightforward.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. REID: Thank him for the red cap first.
MS THISTLE: Yes, first, before I start, I would like to thank the
Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, because they have chosen a
great colour this year for those hats.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I acknowledge that these caps may be very attractive, but I am sure that we
should not use them as props in the House.
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will certainly use it to my advantage - thank you - outside the House.
I would like to make a couple of comments on Bill 46,
An Act To Amend The
Financial Administration Act. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance: What
is the value of funds that are currently in our sinking fund? Is there any
indication by this government to transfer any of these sinking fund revenues to
our current long-term debt? I do not know if he has heard my question or not. I
do not know if he has heard my question, but I would like to ask the Minister of
Finance: Is there an intention of this government to use any of the sinking
funds that are currently in our Treasury to pay off our long-term debt? I would
like to ask him that question first.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I do believe that, this being second reading, we are debating the general
principle of the bill; however, if members wish to do an exchange, they can with
leave.
I turn the floor to the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I guess it is not entirely necessary at this point if the minister does
not wish to answer, but I think it was pretty minor. I was interested in finding
out the value of the current funds that are now in our sinking funds sector of
government Treasury and, also, if there is any intention by this government to
use that money to pay off long-term debt.
MR. SPEAKER: With leave, the minister can answer now or he can wait,
because if speaks now he may close debate.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: I do understand an agreement has been reached.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister who was once responsible for the Financial Administration Act
should know that every single bit of money put into sinking funds is put there
to pay the debt when the debt comes due. That is what sinking funds are all
about. So, sinking funds are used to pay off debt. I said in the beginning, we
are not changing anything. All we are doing is, we are getting authority, where
the administration act is now in the Loan Act - it is just to clarify. It is a
simple procedure. It has nothing to do with putting funds there.
All sinking funds, there are statutory requirements under the act to put
aside money under sinking funds to pay debt when it comes due, and each year we
will allocate money in the sinking funds, $40 million or $45 million, whatever
the case may be, and when the debt comes due we have allocated money to be able
to retire that debt when it comes due. That is the nature of sinking funds. That
has been in since before I came into this House. It is still there. There are no
changes there, absolutely no other thing. It is only the authority under the
Financial Administration Act, we are making that particular amendment. There is
nothing changed with it. I am sure the member should know how that operates
under sinking funds. The question she implied is: Are we going to use it?
Absolutely, just the purpose of what it is.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, to continue to
speak on second reading.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, as the minister just alluded to, this is a housekeeping issue, this
particular bill that is now before the House. Yes, there are many occasions when
the sinking funds that have been allotted for a certain debt are over and above
the required amount and many times an extra payment will be made to the
long-term debt, but I will get into more questions of this nature as we get into
the next reading.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now
read a second time?
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. I apologize to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi. I do believe he wishes to speak to this particular bill.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't sure, when we were
preparing to have questions and answers back and forth, whether the critic was
actually finished speaking. I did want to have a few words to say on this piece
of legislation, it being a financial piece of legislation having to do with the
provincial debt. I want to talk about that, and about the debt as well.
First of all, though, before I start, I want to thank the Government House
Leader for his kind remarks yesterday, when he rose to speak on my recent
announcement that I would be resigning from the leadership of my party, and
asking our party to have a procedure in place to select a new leader. I do want
to thank him for his kind remarks yesterday.
While I am still here, Mr. Speaker, I do intend to carry on in the kind of
vigorous debate that we have been participating in since I have been here, since
1990, and in that regard on this particular bill which is related to how this
government manages the debt of the Province in terms of establishing sinking
funds, the bill itself seems, to me, to be an appropriate way to ensure that we
can provide sinking funds to look after our provincial debt. It is an important
way to do things.
Some of the obligations that the Province have are not paid off like a
mortgage, Mr. Speaker. We do not pay blended principle and interest on our debt.
We have bonds that might come due all at once in ten years time or six years
time or five years time, and the sinking fund is a form of savings account that
is built up over a time so that when the time comes to pay off or roll over the
debt, there is a substantial portion of capital there to roll into the payment
of that debt.
So, a sinking fund is a fancy government finance term for a savings account
of some kind that money is put into over time so that when the full principal
balance of a bond becomes due, that money is there to pay off that debt. It is a
part of the way that debt is managed by the Province and the income from those
Sinking Funds offsets our borrowing costs over time. Mr. Speaker, it is a
positive thing and when we are doing our borrowing we should be able to adjust
the Sinking Funds while we are at it.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say something about our
provincial debt because our Minister of Finance loves to talk about the debt.
You would not know but he liked the debt, Mr. Speaker, the way he talks about it
so much.
MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to get rid of it.
MR. HARRIS: He says he would like to get rid of it but I have not heard
him say anything about what he is going to do to get rid of it when it comes to
the most significant part of our debt, the one that is out of control, the one
that we have not reigned in, and this government has not reigned in, and that is
the unfunded pension liability. The minister has been there for two years. For
two years, Mr. Speaker, he has been there and he talks about the debt. He has
used this as an excuse to take away a provision that the previous government put
in, for example, to ensure that there were not going to be school fees in our
Province. He used the debt as an excuse to take away drugs that had been put on
the formulary to help people who have Alzheimer's. He has used it as an excuse
not to expand programs that are necessary to help people in this Province. But,
Mr. Speaker, the debt that we have today has to be understood, because the debt
that we have today comes in three parts. We have to talk about it that way, Mr.
Speaker, because there are three significant, separate, different parts to our
debt. When you add them all up, it looks pretty grim, but when you divide them
up into parts, it looks like it can be managed and can be fixed.
Let me talk about those three parts of the debt because the three parts are
found pretty easily, Mr. Speaker, or two of them are anyway; two of them are
found pretty easily in our Budget. When the Estimates come out every budget year
- last spring they came out and the debt is set out in an Exhibit to the
Estimates. It is called the Public Sector Debt. That includes a number called
the Provincial Direct Debt, which is $7.2 million. It sounds like a lot of
money, but in relation to the debt of this Province over the last dozen years,
in fact, it has not kept pace at all with our revenues. Our revenues have grown
much faster than this debt. As a percentage of our GDP, in fact, the provincial
debt is down considerably, and that is an important measure, as the Minister of
Finance knows. This was remarked upon by the financial advisors back in the
spring, that the reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio has been reduced by 20 per
cent. So, that is a significant fact. Our public sector debt, our direct debt
is, in fact, extremely manageable in terms of our interest costs going down as a
percentage of our revenue year after year.
Another portion of our debt is called the Crown Corporation and Other Debt.
Now, the majority of that, Mr. Speaker, is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro debt.
I want to just say that, yes, this is part of the Province's overall
responsibility. If Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were to be unable to pay the
debt, the Province is on the hook as a guarantor for that debt. But, in fact,
the Province makes money on that debt. They make money on it. There is a
guarantee fee of 1 per cent paid by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to the
government every year for that debt. It may be worth $100 million, or more.
Every year the government is making money on that debt. So, let's not call
that a problem. That is, in fact, probably - from the Province's point of
view, fiscally speaking - an asset. It earns revenue for this Province, for the
taxpayers. Now people have to pay their bills. People have to pay their electric
bills because it is the customers of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro who pay
that debt and are responsible for that debt primarily, not the taxpayers of
Newfoundland and Labrador. That is $1.4 billion of the debt.
There is other debt, Mr. Speaker, that is guaranteed by the government in
terms of housing, student loans, municipalities. In fact, even debt that the
government does not guarantee, like the City of St. John's, for example. Even
debt that the government does not guarantee is listed here as part of the public
debt of the Province. So, when the minister wants to talk about how bad things
are and raises the number as high as he can, he includes debt that the
government is not even responsible for. Now, that does not mean to say that if
for some reason the City of St. John's got into trouble, was about to default
on their debt, that the Province would not step in. That is not to say that it
would not happen, but it is not something that the Province is directly
responsible for and the taxpayers had to reach into their pockets each and every
year to look after and to manage. So, it is wrong to say that it is a burden on
the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, it is there. It is what is
called a contingent liability.
So, if Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were somehow to go bankrupt, the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador would have to pick up the pieces. Well, that
is not going to happen, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro debt makes money for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but that is
another $2.6 billion. So, we have $7.2 billion and $2.6 billion. When you add
them together you get $9.8 billion. But, guess what, Mr. Speaker? Something that
we just talked about, Sinking Funds. They are Sinking Funds that this bill is
about. They are $1.3 billion in Sinking Funds. Now, that is in the savings. We
are not even talking about the $2 billion that the minister picked up last
summer. There is $1.3 billion in Sinking Funds, our savings account. That $1.3
billion has to be subtracted from the public debt. So we are down, in terms of
the actual provincial direct debt, to less than $6 billion. That is the
mortgage. That is the one we have to pay the mortgage on. That is the one we are
paying interest on every year, $6 billion, and the interest on that is being
reduced every single year as a percentage of our revenues, is down now to around
12 per cent, and it has been reducing every year for the past number of years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the actual money that the Province owes. Now, there
is another number - and this is the one that is used to frighten people, to
frighten the animals, Mr. Speaker, the one the minister likes to talk about but
does nothing about. He talks about it, and maybe when he speaks to close debate
he will tell us what he is going to do about it. I hope he does because he has
not told the people of the Province yet. Maybe he can tell the House this
afternoon. We have something called unfunded liabilities. This is not something
that came upon us yesterday. It was not discovered yesterday. The accountants
started putting it on the books only two years ago, Mr. Speaker. It never even
showed up on the books. The unfunded pension liability - the legacy of
governments of the past actually spending the money that they were supposed to
be contributing to the pension funds.
So, going back to the 1960s and the 1970s, when the government was incurring
pension liabilities for its staff and for teachers, the government was taking
from people's salaries a pension contribution and they were spending it. They
were using it to pave roads, to build schools. They were using that money. They
did not put it in a fund. They did not put it in a pension fund. There was no
such thing as a pension fund. There were pension obligations but no pension
fund. That did not change until the 1980s, Mr. Speaker, and in the 1980s the
government set up a pension fund, but what did they put into it? They only put
into it the contributions that they were taking from people's checks. They put
that into a fund and that became the pension fund. If a government employee or a
school teacher was making a pension contribution equal to 3 per cent, 4 per
cent, 5 per cent or 7 per cent of their wages, that money was taken out of their
check and put into a pension fund. The government contribution which was
supposed to be equal to that was never put in. We have a shortfall that has
grown over the years and it has gotten bigger over the years. Of course,
eventually the accountants got around to insisting that governments across the
country actually look at this as an obligation and something that should reflect
upon government's credit worthiness because of their willingness or
unwillingness or ability to look after and finance their pension obligations.
This is not the first government to talk about it. I remember being in this
House back in 1990 when former Premier Clyde Wells talked about unfunded pension
liabilities. We have been talking about it for a long time and we have done some
things about it. We have increased the contribution rate for many pensions. We
have almost, and I say almost, fixed one of the pensions. The Public Service
Pension Plan is almost fixed, and a lot of credit for that has to go -
AN HON. MEMBER: To Brian Tobin.
MR. HARRIS: The member says Brian Tobin. I would say a lot of credit for
that has to go to the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Newfoundland
Association of Public Employees who, together, brought in actuaries as part of a
negotiating effort in 2001 and showed the government how they could fix that
plan over a thirty-five year period. That plan, with the exception of some
tweaking that this minister I am sure knows all about and is going to tell us
about in a minute -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: He wants to do an awful lot of tweaking but that is alright.
Maybe he is going to do it, maybe he has a plan, because he has not told anyone
about it for the last two years. He has been there for two years. In fact, two
years ago, and this is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, two years ago - I may be
running out of time but I am sure hon. members opposite will give me some leave
if I am. Let's talk about plans, because two years ago in November of 2003
when this government took office the Minister of Finance was very concerned
about the financial picture of the Province, and well he might be, Mr. Speaker.
We were all concerned about the financial picture of the Province. In fact in
the last election all three parties committed, Mr. Speaker, to balancing the
budget over a four year period.
Let me tell you what the Minister of Finance said in November of 2003, very
shortly after he was sworn into office as the Minister of Finance. He said that
he expected the Province's accrued deficit to be in the range of $750 million.
He said: Whether that is realistic or whether we will exceed that we will
certainly see in due course. It is not a bright picture. Then he said: What we
are going to do over the next four years is we are going to actually have a
balanced budget on the cash consolidated side. On the consolidated cash side
over four years we are going to have - the first Tory budget will have a
deficit, but there is to be a balanced budget in four years time on a cash
consolidated basis.
Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? Well, we have two parts of our budget. We
have the cash budget and we have what is called the accrual budget. The accrual
budget is what you owe, what you owe every time you undertake an expenditure.
Let's say, for example, you have an unfunded teachers' pension, and if you
hire a twenty-three year old teacher tomorrow you have to add to your deficit,
you have to add to your provincial debt. The former Auditor General knows that.
If you hire a school teacher today, you have to add a certain figure, and an
actuary will tell you exactly how much you have to add to your provincial debt,
because in thirty years time when that teacher retires you are not going to have
enough money there at the current rate of contribution to pay that teacher's
pension in thirty years time. That is what the accrual budget is all about.
That is the one that this minister announced the other day. That is the one
that he announced the other day that is all taken care of for this year. In fact
he has a $1.5 million surplus projected for this year based on that accrual
budget. This is a long-term thirty years of problems that he has solved for this
year based on the windfall that he received since last March; way, way ahead of
schedule, Mr. Speaker. That is something that we were all hoping to do in eight
years, and it is done now. What that means - and this is very important. These
are long-term problems and some of them require long-term solutions. I think the
minister will acknowledge that.
When you look at the solution to the unfunded pension liability in the Public
Service Pension Plan there was a thirty-year solution; a certain contribution to
be made by the employees, a certain contribution being made by the government on
an ongoing basis, and the government being required to put in extra money every
year. I think it was in the order of $70 million. If they did that every year
for the next thirty years that would, for the most part, solve the unfunded
liability in the Public Service Pension Plan. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the
employees and the public service are actually paying more than it would take to
satisfy the actuarial demands of their pension to make up for what governments
of the past did not do. There have to be some adjustments and the minister is
going to tell us about that in a minute, because they did not adjust for the
increase in the overall salary budget of the Province. That is something that
was supposed to be part of the deal but got left out at the end.
There are unfunded liability problems and the minister will probably tell us
how much. It depends what the actuaries say from year to year. It depends on the
interest rates and it depends on the long-term projections of interest rates.
These are long-term problems and these are problems that will deal with
obligations of the Province over the next ten, fifteen, twenty, in some cases
thirty years. We do need long-term solutions. We do not have them yet. As I say,
the minister, I hope, will tell us about them.
When you look at the Province's public debt, Mr. Speaker, the three
elements are as follows: the net direct debt; the guaranteed debt; and there is
the unfunded liability debt. The net direct debt, in my view, Mr. Speaker, in my
judgement, is quite manageable. I do not know if the minister will agree. The
minister might say: Do you want to be like Alberta, would you rather have no
debt? We would all rather have no debt, Mr. Speaker, but people who live in this
Province, if they want to buy a house they go into debt, if they want to buy a
car they go into debt in most cases. Some people even go into debt to go on a
holiday. Mr. Speaker, debt is part of the way you do business. Debt is a part of
the way people live. They borrow money. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if the people of
this Province had to operate the way the government is required to operate and
have a balanced budget, they would not be able to buy a house. The way public
finance works, if you go out and build a building or pave a road, spend $30
million on road paving that might last you thirty years or twenty years, that
has to be accounted for in the year in which you borrow or else you go into a
deficit.
Individual family financing does not work like that. If you buy a house in
one year you are paying for it over a twenty-year period or a twenty-five year
period, in some cases longer, in some cases shorter. People manage their ongoing
obligations in that way. Our existing net direct debt of around $6 billion, when
you net out the sinking funds, is actually the mortgage that we are paying, and
that, in my judgement, is fairly manageable.
There may well be questions about whether or not the Hydro debt is higher
than it should be in terms of a debt to equity ratio. That is something for
Hydro to solve. That is something to be resolved by government and by the Board
of Hydro. It is not something that the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador
are going to have to pay into.
The unfunded pension liability, principally here - and I think that is the
exact number the minister will say - we have a significant problem with the
Teachers' Pension Fund. We have a significant problem with the Teachers'
Pension Fund and the minister knows this issue very well. I see that I only have
a minute left. I hope that the minister when he rises on his feet will talk
about that, because what we have seen, Mr. Speaker, in the last six months in
this Province is a gigantic reversal of this government's fortunes to the
point that this minister should have had, and should be bringing into this
House, a mini budget saying: We have all this new revenue and we are going to
use some of it to look after certain problems of our debt. We are going to use
other portions of it to bring back some of the programs that we cancelled. We
are going to use some of it to provide relief for the people of this Province.
We are going to provide certain increases that need to be supplied to the people
of this Province who are receiving Income Support, for example, people who need
medical transportation, people who need drugs to be able to get their fair piece
that they need for their medical conditions. All of these things are crying out
for help and this minister should be bringing in a mini budget instead of just a
fiscal statement saying: We have taken all that money, we are putting it in our
back pocket, we are going to use it to pay off the cash deficit, but we are also
going to use it to pay off the accrual deficit. He should not be doing that, Mr.
Speaker. He should bring in a new plan and tell us how that money is going to
help us solve our problems in the long run as well as the short term.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
If the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he
will close debate at second reading.
The hon. the minister.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to add, there are a lot of inaccuracies in what the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, and I will point them out. Number one, when you
borrow for a house and you might mortgage it for $100,000 or $200,000, you have
a value in that house and it is paid off in a period of time. We record on the
books of this Province tangible capital assets. We include the acquisition of
tangible capital assets. We include the amortization appreciation of tangible
capital assets and they are reflected in our financial statement. I am not sure
if the member is aware of that but that is a fact.
There is also more debt than he talked about. There is another piece of debt
other than the three he talked about that he hasn't even made reference to,
$1.2 billion on post-retirement liabilities, which means the government today
pays 50 per cent of the health care costs of everybody working for government
and everybody who retired. We pay 50 per cent of those costs. We have run up a
bill now, if we stopped the clock today, for those in the service, we would have
to pay out $1.2 billion to be able to meet the future needs of the health plans
that we agreed to pay 50 per cent of.
AN HON. MEMBER: When? In five years?
MR. SULLIVAN: When they incur it.
AN HON. MEMBER: Over how many years?
MR. SULLIVAN: It is just like a mortgage. It is $1.2 billion we have to
pay. In other words, if we said to people - if we want to get that debt off our
books, we have to tell the people: When you retire, we are not going to pay any
of your health plan.
We do not propose to do that, Mr. Speaker. We are not proposing that. It is
real debt, and we are counting. He talked about sinking funds. If he followed
the financial statement I released at mid-term, we net off sinking funds; we net
off all those things. In our $12 billion debt, I will tell him what is there:
$4.4 billion of unfunded pension liability; $1.2 billion of post-retirement
liabilities.
MR. JOYCE: Sit down!
MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Bay of Islands, not in his seat, is yelling
back and forth around the House. I am trying to explain and answer the questions
the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi asked. If he wants to interrupt and doesn't
want to hear it, I will certainly do it at another time when he is absent from
the House.
I will make this point before I sit down. If I am not interrupted again, I
will make the other points.
MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for the Bay of Islands is shouting
from his seat. He is not supposed to be speaking when he is not in his seat, and
he should stand and be recognized if he is in his seat.
We counted $4.4 billion unfunded liability. If you attended the news
conference, or read it, or followed the Web site, or read the documents of
government, you would find out.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to that first. I will correct your inaccuracies
first, and then I will get to how we are going to fix it. How can you fix
something when you do not know what is wrong and you do not have the facts? That
member does not know the facts. That is like saying: How do you know when you
are going to get somewhere if you do not know where you are going.
MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: One point two billion plus retirement liabilities, and the
remainder of that debt, when you take these two away, leaves $6.4 billion as the
net debt of debenture debt and other related debt, in addition to the five point
six for post-retirement liabilities and unfunded pension liabilities.
Another aspect that he mentioned, he indicated: How are we going to deal with
it? - read a statement I read two years ago. He said: We are doing it too fast;
we have eight years to balance it. Then he said: How are you going to deal with
debt? Here is how you deal with debt, and here is the plan.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you where we are heading. The plan, first of
all, is to stop adding to debt if you are going to deal with it. We faced $1
billion of debt two years ago from the former government. It put us so far down,
we didn't think we would ever get out of it. We did get to - the first year,
we closed at $913.6 million deficit. I will be tabling the public accounts - it
will be ready for tabling shortly - and you will see last year's debt is in
the ballpark, I will say, of $500 million. The debt for this year, hopefully -
hopefully - we will balance the budget. The price of oil that we get is $52 a
barrel. I think I saw Brent today at $53, which means we get below Brent. It may
drop below our projections if it goes any lower, but if it stays where it is
then we should, hopefully, balance the budget this year.
Here is what you do with debt. First of all, you have to stop adding to debt
before you can deal with it. How are we going to deal with it? I have put a
proposal to Cabinet. We are looking at long-term financial viability of dealing
with our debt and our unfunded liability. How can you deal with it when you are
spending $1 billion more than you are taking in, in a year? The only way to deal
with debt is to have the fiscal flexibility to not be spending more than you are
taking in, and stop adding to it. That is one of the reasons why.
A lot of the information he made - here is where we got there. Two years ago,
or when they had the federal election campaign, prior to that, when we went out
with the Blue Book, people laughed and said - people in this House - how are you
going to do it? One of the things you are doing in your platform, the federal
government has to pay more. They said, you are hanging your hat on getting out
of our fiscal dilemma on the federal government.
Since that, the record speaks for itself. During tough negotiations on
equalization with Ottawa - the Premier was there, and I know how much effort he
put into it - we extracted between $50 million and $100 million, depending on
(inaudible) out of equalization. We got a Health Accord that is putting in an
average of almost $50 million a year extra for each year. We got an Atlantic
Accord that is putting hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars extra into
our coffers. This year, with the price of oil going up - I read a former member,
I saw his name in the paper today, he was running and he said the price of oil
they are taking for. Little does he realize that the price of oil went up and
will give us $300 million more than we budgeted, but it would be clawed back
under equalization had we not gotten an accord to protect it and had we not
gotten a fixed equalization pot for the two-year period. It would have gone in
one hand, out the other. We were lucky the price went up, absolutely, but were
we lucky we can keep it? No, it was tough fighting under the Atlantic Accord.
That is why our fiscal situation has improved. That is why we are getting out of
debt in our Province.
What are we going to do about it? We are looking now that we are not going to
be spending more than we are taking in - rolling out. We are looking at rolling
out a way to deal with the issues you raised, that I am very concerned with, and
an issue that I put forward. Over the next period of time we will deal with this
issue because we are in a position now where we can stop adding to debt and
start to deal with the debt that is out there. It is a very serious position.
AN HON. MEMBER: What are you going to (inaudible)?
MR. SULLIVAN: We are not going to tell you yet, I say to the member,
until we announce it. We will announce it in due course, I will say to him. We
will announce it in due course. There are proper processes and procedures to
follow, I will tell the member, and he will not be the last to find out but he
will not be the first to find out. I will tell him that.
Mr. Speaker, there are numerous aspects to dealing with this. We have a
serious problem. He said, a little tweaking to fix the Public Service Pension
Plan. (Inaudible) by 2033 - we are now at 50 per cent and we will be there in
2033, and we need $2 billion now to get it on an even keel. That is a lot of
tweaking, $2 billion to get the Public Service Pension Plan fully funded when
other jurisdictions around this country, a lot of them, have fully funded plans.
We need $2.3 billion to fix the Teachers' Pension Plan. We need tens and
tens of millions to fix the Uniformed Services Pension Plan - $4.4 billion. That
is a lot of tweaking. A little tweaking to fix it, a $2 billion tweak. That is
what it is to fix it.
He was not factual on what we are reporting. He indicated - we do include
tangible capital assets. If you look in the financial statements we release each
year, and in budget, there are net additions of tangible capital assets and
there is an amortization shown through these. They are in the statement. We have
added that.
The member said they were never recorded. The public accounts of our Province
has always recorded, to my knowledge, way back since long before I came here. I
cannot go back to the 1950s and say it, but the public accounts of the Province
have always recorded those aspects of the unfunded liability and pension plans,
to my knowledge. Certainly since I have come in this House, I can speak for
that. They have been recorded. In spite of what the member says, that is
absolutely false.
He will find out in due course, but you cannot fix debt when you keep adding
to debt. You increase your risk. You pass the burden on to others. You increase
the burden for everybody when you do that.
I will end with saying that this bill here, and this paper, has absolutely
nothing to do - I just wanted to answer the question and not avoid answering
them - has absolutely nothing to do; it is just a little technical procedure to
include -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: It is not tweaking either. The Loan Act gives authority
right now to do it, and now the Financial Administration Act will. You could
call it housekeeping there. It is just how it is administratively delivered
under this particular act.
With that, I move to close second reading on the bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 46,
An Act To
Amend The Financial Administration Act, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill
46)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this
bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
AN HON. MEMBER: Later.
MR. SPEAKER: Later.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration
Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave. (Bill 46)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 10, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal
Financing Corporation Act," Bill 47.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal
Financing Corporation Act." (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 47, "An Act To Amend
The Municipal Financing Corporation Act," be now read a second time.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This particular bill here is one that would make is consistent with the
Financial Administration Act and the Hydro Corporation Act. What this does:
Right now, if the Municipal Financing Corporation wants to borrow it goes to
Cabinet and gets approval to borrow, then it comes back, and the Minister of
Finance is responsible to go to the markets and borrow and then go back to
Cabinet a second time. It is cumbersome, it is not consistent with the Financial
Administration Act, it is not consistent with the Hydro Corporation Act, and
sometimes when the market is there, by having to wait to go back to Cabinet, you
could lose the opportunity to maximum your borrowing and your price, and it
could fall through and it could cause you to borrow at a higher rate. It is
giving the authority to line it up with others, so that you don't have to go
to Cabinet twice, when a decision is made to borrow for specific municipal
funding and other types of funding that would be covered. Actually, it is
municipal financing funding that would be under this specific bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister said, I guess this piece of legislation makes it consistent
with the Financial Administration Act and less cumbersome on whoever the
minister might be, rather than going back to the Cabinet more than one time. I
can see being able to do that, but the bottom line for all of us - regardless if
it is under the Municipal Financing Act or the Corporation or under the Minister
of Municipal Affairs, that is really not the big question, because at the end of
the day the government will be responsible for the debt. I guess what is
important is how much will be spent on the municipalities in the Province
regardless of who is in control of it, especially those in the rural part of the
Province.
I will conclude with that and speak in Committee, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also want to speak in support of this legislation because it does make the
operation of the Province's finances more efficient. As the minister says,
there may be opportunities when particular circumstances ought to be taken
advantage of without having to go back to Cabinet, so I support that.
I do want to say this, Mr. Speaker - partly in response to what the minister
said on the last bill - that he's not the only one who understands the
Province's finances. We understand that the unfunded pension liability is
significant and serious, but the $2 billion that he is talking about is not due
and owing tomorrow. We do not have to reach into our pockets tomorrow and come
up with $2 billion to look after the unfunded pension liability. We know the
minister has $2 billion in the bank from the Atlantic Accord. We know he has
another $1.5 billion in Sinking Funds in the bank; $3.5 billion. We are not
saying that is available to provide for hospitals today or tomorrow. That is
something that is required over the long term, to look after long-term debt and
to look after revenue that we are going to accrue over the next several years.
So, we understand that, but the same thing happens on the other side. The $2
billion in unfunded pension liability that he is talking about, or the amount
that is owing on the Public Service Pension Plan, that is being looked after by
an additional payment by the workers of this Province who are putting in an
additional 1 per cent over and above the actuarial cost of their own pension.
They are putting in more than they have to put in to pay for the pension, and
they are doing it over the long run and will be doing it for the next
twenty-five or thirty years. The government is committed to putting an
additional $70 million a year into that pension fund.
MR. SULLIVAN: Sixty.
MR. HARRIS: Sixty million. Well, maybe if it was $70 million we would not
have a problem. That is the kind of tweaking that I am talking about, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: He says if they need it - if they have a hundred and twenty.
But, whatever it is, there has to be some change made to do it but we do not
need $2 billion tomorrow to fix the problem. That is my point, Mr. Speaker. I
think the minister actually understands that.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, he is not the only one who understands the
finances of the Province, that these are long-term problems. They were created a
long time ago. It took a long time for us to get where we are today and it is
going to take us a long time to solve them. So, you cannot go waving around
these long-term obligations and say: Oh, my, oh, my, the sky is falling in. It
is like somebody with a mortgage of $100,000. I mean, some people cannot sleep
at night because their mortgage is $100,000, but their house might be worth
$200,000 or $150,000 and they may be paying it off over the next twenty years.
Other people find it quite easy to sleep at night because they know they can pay
off a mortgage of $50,000 or $40,000 or $70,000.
We are in a position, for example, on the regular debt that we have, to make
our interest payments, which take up about 10 per cent to 12 per cent of our
revenue. Not bad. Not bad, really, when it is compared to other provinces, and
when it is compared to the - now, the minister is whispering some other numbers
here. There may be other numbers but I am talking about the direct debt now. I
am not talking about the imagined debt and the debt that is not owing for the
long term. There may be interest costs, notional interests costs, on this
unfunded liability that get added. I am saying on the direct debt we do not
really have a significant problem. We have to solve the unfunded pension
liability, but we are not going to solve it in one week or in one year. We do
not have to come up with $2 billion or $3 billion next year to fix it. The
problem with the pension fund is that there is not enough contributions being
made on an annual basis to cover the long-term obligations. When that is fixed
the problem will be resolved. It is like your bank coming to you and saying you
are not paying enough to discharge your mortgage. If you paid an extra $50 a
month your mortgage would be in good shape, but that does not mean it is going
to go away. You just have to pay an extra $50 a month to straighten out your
situation. That is the analogy that I am making.
Now, in the Province's financial picture the number might not be $50 a
month, it might be more like $50 million a month that you would have to come up
with, but the revenues of this Province are in excess of $4 billion a year and
ways have to be found to solve some of these problems so that these long-term
problems will have long-term solutions so that we do not have to go around
talking about the sky falling in every time somebody wants to spend some money
on a necessary program in a Province with the highest rate of child poverty in
the country, the highest rate of unemployment in the country, the highest rate
of childhood obesity in the country and children going to school hungry
everyday. These are the problems that we have to fix. We can also fix the
long-term problems by having long-term solutions. We cannot just take money that
happens to come our way, throw it against the debt and ignore the needs of the
people. That is the point that I was making. That is the point that I will
continue to make every opportunity that I get in this House because it is
important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand that, yes,
we have long-term debt problems and we have to find solutions, but that does not
mean we have to make many people in our Province suffer in the short-term to
solve these problems.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance. If the minister speaks now he will close
debate on second reading.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will just thank both of the members there for supporting this bill. It is
one that will facilitate the process.
I do want to just add that, with reference to some of the comments, we are
only paying interest on the debt. We have not been able, over the last number of
years, to reduce debt. We have increased debt and we are just keeping up by
paying the interest. I think we will reduce it from about $1.7 billion last
year, or the year before, to this past year of $940 million. So, we are making
strides in reducing our interest on the debt. So, that is encouraging. There are
a couple of reasons for that. One is that while we are not adding to debt as
quickly as we used to, it was that the interest rates - when debt comes due you
roll them back in at a much lower rate because interest rates are down. So,
these are advantages we have been trying to capitalize on.
Once again, I thank the members for their support and the expeditious moving
of this bill.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 47,
An Act To Amend
The Municipal Financing Corporation Act be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation Act. (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been a second time. When shall this bill
be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?
MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Later today.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Financing Corporation
Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave. (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 8, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies
Tax Act. (Bill 49)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 49,
An Act To Amend The
Insurance Companies Tax Act be now read a second time.
On motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance
Companies Tax Act." (Bill 49)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess three general aspects to the bill. One - it is covered in the first
two clauses there - is that government is looking at, instead of annual payments
there, they would be able to collect and submit - most companies submit their
taxes, like deductions for Income Tax, EI and CPP, on a monthly basis. This will
allow companies to forward on a monthly basis. So, we will have more timely
submissions of monies coming into government. That is the nature of that.
Also, right now if someone does not agree with an assessment, they have to go
to the courts, to the Trial Division. We are adding in the sections - that is
referenced there in clauses 3 and 4, to have an appeal process before it goes to
that level. At least there is an appeal to the minister. They will have an
opportunity. He might be able to address those concerns without having to go to
the courts on it. That should save, hopefully, time and money and get it
resolved, if that is successful.
Also, in reference to fines; the last sections are pertaining to fines. The
fines are identified. They are not exceeding $100 for each day of failure to
comply or 10 per cent of the tax that is unpaid. So, that is to allow it to
bring it in line with the amounts that is in other legislation and so on.
So, these are the key points here in this bill. With that, I will finish my
introduction here on the second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to stand in support of Bill 49,
An Act To Amend The
Insurance Companies Act.
One thing I h