May 22, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 29
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am just asking leave of the House to have us acknowledge, in the Legislature today, that we have two birthday boys in our presence. In a non-partisan way, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, we wish you a Happy Birthday. If we were being partisan I would only wish a Happy Birthday to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and a very, very Happy Birthday to the Deputy Premier; but just to recognize, Mr. Speaker, and have the Legislature know that we do have two birthday boys here today and we are very proud of both of them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, three teachers in the Mount Pearl area have been recognized for excellence in their profession. Stella Greenslade, a teacher at Mount Pearl Senior High was the recipient of the Atlantic Provinces Enterprise Educator of the Year Award for 2001. Competition for this award is open to all educators at the secondary and post-secondary levels who are involved in the delivery of Enterprise Education. This award was presented to Mrs. Greenslade in Moncton, New Brunswick in late April.
Ms Joanne Sparkes, another teacher at Mount Pearl Senior High, is the recipient of the Prime Minister's Certificate of Achievement. This award recognizes her commitment to excellence in Mathematics Education and her leadership in professional and curriculum development. This award will be presented tomorrow morning on behalf of the Prime Minister by Loyola Hearn, the Member of Parliament for St. John's West.
Clarence Button, a teacher at O'Donel High School, has received the Prime Minister's Certificate of Excellence for his leadership in curriculum development, specifically for his work with science and technology students. This award was presented in Ottawa a few days ago.
Mr. Speaker, in offering congratulations to these three teachers in the Mount Pearl school system, I would like to note that nation-wide, a total of sixty-five teachers were awarded the Prime Minister's Award for Excellence in teaching. Seven of these awards were granted to teachers in this Province, a very commendable commentary on the leadership, dedication and hard work of our teachers to inspire and promote a positive learning atmosphere in our schools.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House to pay tribute to one of Carbonear's leading citizens, Hayford Fong, who passed away last Saturday at the age of seventy-nine.
Hayford Fong was a pioneer in the Chinese community here in Newfoundland, becoming the third Chinese adult to become a citizen of Newfoundland in 1939.
He was the third generation of the Fong family who started the King Café in 1918, which later expanded into a confectionary store on Duckworth Street.
After marrying his wife in 1948, he returned to Newfoundland, establishing the Fong's Restaurant and Motel in Carbonear in 1959.
Mr. Fong was always known for his interest in the development of the Carbonear area and will be remembered for his contributions to the community as both a private citizen and an entrepreneur.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members, I send my deepest sympathy to his wife, three daughters and two sons on the loss of this pioneer in the Chinese community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to stand today to recognize and inform the House of some activities that have been happening in my district in Bonavista, namely on the Marine Centre there. Just last week I was invited down to take part and witness a new 65 foot long-liner built on the Marine Center in Bonavista and launched in Bonavista. A gentleman by the name of Wayne Marsh, who was the boat builder there, is presently carrying out this activity, employing in excess of sixty people year around. This is the third boat that he has launched in Bonavista.
In speaking with Mr. Marsh, he indicated to me that there is a lot of activity having to be turned away from the yard. If we could only get a set of tracks put there which would allow them to take some of the passing trade, some boats, and be able to take it up into the yard, there would certainly be a lot more employment opportunities.
This particular boat was owned by Captain Glenn White from my district. It shows the individual's commitment and belief in the fishing industry in this Province, when you see him step forward and spend in excess $1 million to build a new boat to provide some comfort and safety to his crew who have to go in excess of 200 miles offshore in order to make a living from this industry that have employed and, I suppose, have been responsibility for maintaining most of the communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
I just wanted to make the House aware of that, that there is some activity. There is some hope in some of those places, and maybe with a little bit of help we can reach out -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - and help this new industry so that we could provide even more activity in places like Bonavista.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to acknowledge the contributions made to the Province in the area of drama by the Carol Players of Labrador West.
The Carol Players have been in existence for the past thirty-eight years and during that period of time have won many awards, not only throughout the Province, but internationally as well. Many well known actors in our Province have been part of the Carol Players over the years, including: Kevin Lewis, Clar Doyle and Jerry Doyle to name but a few.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, in 1985, the Carol Players represented Canada at the international drama festival in Ireland with their production of Mass Appeal and walked away with the Audience Appreciation Award, the very first time in the history of the festival that this award has ever left Ireland.
While in Ireland for the festival one of our local entertainers and singers who travelled with the group, Leo Bromley, was singing old songs which originated in Ireland many years ago, and are still preserved in our Province, but were lost to the Irish music culture. He spent many hours writing the words of those songs for Irish singers who were very interested in bringing those songs back to life in their own country.
This year, Mr. Speaker, the Carol Players were invited to take part in the international festival and will be performing the play West Moon. They will be leaving on Thursday of this week and I am certain everyone in this House joins me in wishing them the best.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to update my colleagues in the Legislature regarding the status of the Newfoundland and Labrador/Nova Scotia offshore boundary dispute arbitration.
Early today, the Tribunal released its decision with respect to Phase One of the arbitration. In a unanimous decision, the Tribunal confirmed the position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it confirmed the position presented by Newfoundland and Labrador that the line dividing the respective offshore areas of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia had not been previously resolved by agreement.
The Tribunal's decision represents an important victory for this Province. We are one step away from the establishment of a line and the resolution of a dispute that has prevented exploration from proceeding in highly prospective areas between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
Much work, however, remains. In Phase Two of this arbitration, the Tribunal will determine a line to separate the offshore areas of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Our energies, therefore, will be focused on effectively presenting Newfoundland and Labrador's arguments to the Tribunal.
Premier John Hamm and I appreciate the importance of resolving this dispute as quickly as possible. To that end, I have spoken to Premier Hamm this morning and we have agreed to meet within the next couple of weeks in St. John's, if possible, to discuss possible areas of cooperation which may be in our mutual interest and benefit.
I would like to recognize the efforts of the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. Lloyd Matthews.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: I would also like to thank Ministers Parsons and Lush of the Departments of Justice and Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: - all of whom were key to the preparation and presentation of this case, with their officials. As a former Minister of Mines and Energy, I appreciate the complexity of the issues involved in this dispute, and I thank each of them and their officials for their dedication and commitment to this particular issue.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that I can speak for everyone in this Legislature and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in extending our thanks to our legal and technical team. In particular, I would like to recognize our lead legal counsel, Professor Donald McRae, and Alan Willis, Brian Crane and Ron Gélinas. These gentlemen are to be commended for effectively presenting our case to the Tribunal during the oral hearings. I would also like to pay particular praise to Deborah Paquette of our own Department of Justice, who served as the Province's Deputy Agent in these particular hearings.
As was the case with Phase One, Newfoundland and Labrador will not argue its case in Phase Two through the media. We will remain focused on the arbitration and presenting our best case to the Tribunal. Our written arguments, however, will again be made available to the public and the hearings will be open to the public as well.
The resolution of this long-standing dispute will be positive for Newfoundland and Labrador, and also for Nova Scotia. A resolution will see the opening up of new areas of the offshore to exploration and the realization, Mr. Speaker, of opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Nova Scotians.
In my discussions with Premier Hamm today, we also discussed a potential joint campaign to address the well-known inequities in the equalization formula with respect to offshore petroleum royalties.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is indeed a very important and critical decision that has been awaited by many people in the Province. First of all, let me join with the Premier and government in congratulating those ministries and in particular our legal team, led by the individuals the Premier outlined, for presenting our case in such a way that the Tribunal has made a decision that can be seen as a victory for us.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution, the Premier says, of this long-standing dispute will be positive for Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. I will say that largely depends upon what the resolution is, or the Tribunal's decision coming out of Phase Two. Obviously, though, from the higher points or the higher note, a decision that will effectively put in place a boundary line will be able, for our Province, to move on with exploration, to advance opportunities in exploration, development, production, et cetera, that should be and can only be, if we do it properly, right for the people of the Province.
I will say to the Premier: In your last paragraph in your statement, you talked about the discussions that you and Premier Hamm had today on a possible potential joint campaign to address the well-known inequities in the equalization formula. I applaud that; but, it is my understanding, based upon past comments that you have made, that you have already received some form of a commitment on that from the Prime Minister.
I can say that it is largely known by all of us, though, that the equalization formula which was designed to eliminate inequities has really created inequality. To that end, whatever this government, whatever this side of the House, can do, whether it is with Premier Hamm of Nova Scotia or any other Premier, to advance our case to ensure that the equalization formula or some son or child of the equalization formula that emerges should be truly in the sense that will eliminate inequalities for regions of the Province like ours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, would like to congratulate all of those involved in the successful decision that has been received. I think it is important that we resolve the boundary dispute so that we can further encourage development of the natural gas to take place.
I would like to say to the Premier that what we need in this Province is an oil and gas industry, not just oil and gas. It is important that any development of our offshore resources be first and foremost utilized to benefit the people of the Province, in terms of badly needed jobs and incomes to provide for their families. So, while this decision is encouraging, and I think the people of the Province are behind the government in their position on this, I think the people of the Province also want to make sure that they are the beneficiaries of any development of the oil and gas off our shores.
Thank you.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The government has made a greater commitment to accountability and openness in government. We have before us a bill on the Order Paper now to reinstate the Office of the Ombudsman. We think the bill can be improved. In fact, the Minister of Justice and myself have been discussing possible amendments and I think we may reach some possible conclusion to that.
Still to come, Mr. Speaker, is promised legislation to create the Office of the Child Advocate and to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act along with the Freedom of Information Commissioner, possibly. These, onto themselves, are good things.
I would like to ask the Premier this: In an effort to improve accountability and transparency in government, will the Premier agree that in this Province, like in other provincial jurisdictions and in the Parliament of Canada, that it is now time for this Legislature to move to introduce a piece of legislation known as the lobbyist act that would require people who are lobbyists or consultants in the Province to register with who they directly or indirectly do business with, and to register with the types of representations they make to government in the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly an issue that we will have looked at through the summer and into the fall to see whether there is a requirement or a need in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am personally not aware of very much in terms of lobbying activity that happens in our Province compared to what happens in the federal scene in Ottawa, where this legislation does make sense and has been required for some time. We will certainly be doing a review of the circumstance across the country with respect to other jurisdictions to see what the state of play is in the country today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is not only the Parliament of Canada that has such legislation. The Province of Ontario has had it for years. In the Province of Nova Scotia, I say to the Premier, there is an act being debated right now, an act to provide for the registration of lobbyists.
I would like to ask the Premier: If you want open government that not only works honestly, but is perceived as well by the people to be honest, I think we have to deal with the issue of lobbyists. There is a suspicion that too many government decisions are deals that are brokered by lobbyists for large corporations or friends of the government in power. The federal government and many -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, and I would ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The federal government, and many provincial governments, already require lobbyists to register. My question is: Why should we, in this Province, maintain lobbying which is not a dishonorable profession, I say to the Premier, as a cloak-and-dagger sort of operation? Why would we want to hide their activities on the one hand and even, to such an extent, their existence from the public?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, the circumstance in Newfoundland and Labrador, I think, as the members of the Opposition and others would recognize and acknowledge, is that when we compare notes with politicians and government bureaucracies in other jurisdictions, the view is that people understand that you don't really need lobbyists in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are always amazed at how easy it is to get access to ministers, to senior officials, to people in the government without needing any lobbyist to intervene on your behalf, because we are a small place, we know each other.
Mr. Speaker, I would get more calls, for example, on a daily basis from someone like John Crosbie who is not lobbying for anybody, but who is just interested in the well-being of Newfoundland and Labrador and feels quite free to phone the Premier, anyone of the ministers, or any member of the government. He does not feel like he needs to hire any lobbyist or anyone else. Most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are exactly in that category. But, we will check and see if it is an issue that is of such magnitude or such an issue that requires legislative attention. If it does, Mr. Speaker, we will bring it forward for consideration in the fall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, people in this Province know - and maybe the Premier can answer the question: Are you saying that government has never been vigorously lobbied or lobbied on behalf of, for example, Voisey's Bay Nickel Company? We believe and we have been told it has. Are you saying that government was never lobbied with respect to, for example, the NEOS proposal a year-and-a-half ago or currently on the dissident board by FPI? Is government saying that they have never been lobbied, for example, on the decision to go through the Apollo? Has it ever been lobbied with respect to the bulk export of water? The list goes on.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is simply this: Doesn't the Premier agree that there are people in this Province who are close to government who are registered lobbyist, who register with the federal Government of Canada? Don't you agree it is time, in the interest of transparency and accountability, that we introduce similar legislation as other provincial jurisdictions have done so that we can see, so that everybody can see, that if anybody is a consultant or lobbyist that we know who they are lobbying for, what they are lobbying for, and on who's behalf they are lobbying? Wouldn't that piece of legislation contain some merit and also be in keeping with the spirit and intent of your commitment, Mr. Premier, to be fully transparent and accountable?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
I would expect that the issue is being raised in the context of a different environment altogether than Newfoundland and Labrador. The firms and the circumstances that were mentioned, we have not been lobbied on behalf of Inco. We deal directly with the senior officials of Inco. We do not need any lobbyists to come to us. The minister meets directly with Mr. Hamm. There are no lobbyists in between in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are not required. That is why it must be a very difficult place for any lobbyist, I would suggest, in Newfoundland and Labrador to try to make money by lobbying with the provincial government because their clients can come directly to the ministries and to the Premier's office without needing a lobbyist.
When we have these particular issues the proponents themselves come directly to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said at the beginning, one of the things that they find pretty amazing is that they can pick up the phone and call a ministry, a minister, a senior official, and they get the meeting. The difficulty in a place like Ottawa and Washington, where these things make sense in national governments and in a government as huge and big as the Government of Ontario, is that those proponents find it difficult, if not impossible, to get a meeting with the ministers and senior officials; so they send lobbyists in, weeks and weeks in advance, even to try to arrange meetings.
Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, having said that, if it makes sense, because the commitment of this government - which is already obvious because we are delivering on it - is that we accept the challenge and the opportunity to be open with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, fully accountable, because they will support us when they know what we are doing and why we are doing it, with full access to the information that we used on their behalf.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier tries to spin that where we are such a small place that we do not need it because Ottawa is so big and Ontario is so big. He fails to recognize that Nova Scotia, which is not that much bigger than us, is introducing that legislation.
I would like to ask him this question: Doesn't he agree with the principle that is contained in the legislation before the Province of Nova Scotia's House of Assembly for debate, that where applicable, that where a lobbyist or consultant has to register the law requires that he or she register whether the payment made to the consultant/lobbyist is, in whole or in part, contingent on the consultants/lobbyist degree of success in lobbying as described -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the Premier: Does he agree with the spirit and intent of what I have just outlined, that in the interest of fairness, of accountability, of transparency, that all friends of the government - and there are some, Mr. Speaker, who make a living doing consultancy work and lobbyist work, which is not a bad thing - but in the interest of being accountable, wouldn't he agree that it is high time that we move towards such legislation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, we will have a look at it through the summer, into the fall. If it is an item that is needed in Newfoundland and Labrador, because it does fit generically into the whole theme and approach of this government, which is - already in just three short months - the most accountable government that this Province has ever seen, including seventeen years -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: - when the Progressive Conservatives were in office, Mr. Speaker. We should not forget that. It is an absolute position that we believe in fully, and if it makes sense in Newfoundland and Labrador, we will gladly provide opportunity for debate of that in the Legislature next fall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this question: Does he agree with former Premier Brian Tobin's statement in which he said that most people who are watching a debate around lobbyists are saying that it is a good thing to make lobbyists register? Does he agree with Mr. Tobin, that the people who traditionally operate in the shadowy, smokey backrooms will now have to come out into the full glaring light of day to register? Does he agree that it is in the public interest that we move towards ensuring that transparency, accountability, in those who are trying to influence the decisions of government on major public policies -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: - that they bring in place legislation that governs the conduct of friends of the government and lobbyists in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question. The Premier has alluded to looking at it over the summer. Let me ask him if he will he make a further commitment?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: He has, I say to the Minister of Finance. He has alluded that they would look at it over the summer. Now if you want me to ask you some questions, I will get to you in a second when I am finished with him right here, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: My question for the Premier is this: In view of the fact -
AN HON. MEMBER: Another bad weed.
MR. E. BYRNE: No, there are no bad weeds on this side of the House, I can say to the member opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: If you want to describe the last three months as bad weeds for the Opposition and your hand is in the (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, maybe government or members opposite will let me ask the question to the Premier and see if he will answer it. The question is this: In view of the fact that you have alluded to government looking at it - because it is in keeping with your newfound philosophy of transparency and openness - will you agree today to strike a committee of this House to look at how legislatures across the country deal with this, like Nova Scotia, like Ontario, like the Parliament of Canada, with a mandate to report back to the House, to a particular ministry or directly to this committee, to make recommendations for possible legislation coming this fall?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would suggest that, as always, if the Leader of the Opposition is interested in finding out exactly what the views are of Minister Tobin or anyone else, he can ask them in another forum and he will probably get an answer.
Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that we will have a look at this through the summer. We will decide, at that point in time, whether or not it is an issue that is front enough and important enough in Newfoundland and Labrador to require some legislation, and we will report back to the House in that fashion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. In April of 1997 the provincial government entered into a federal agreement called the Labrador initiative to upgrade the highway system in Labrador, but as part of that agreement, took on the responsibility of the Coastal Labrador ferry service. The minister's own officials were in Labrador as of late, Mr. Speaker, and according to councillors in Labrador, and I quote: The Northern Ranger and Sir Robert Bond will be gone and replaced with a freighter boat that will seat fifty people. Can the minister tell us today why he has even considered such a sinister reaction to this and why are the people of Labrador being treated as freight?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Labrador Agreement called for the construction of a road from Red Bay to Cartwright, which indicated there would be less requirements for a larger ferry on the Labrador run. We are in the process of consultation with the people in Labrador and, in the next two weeks, I will be on the Northern Coast of Labrador to consult with all the councils and all the people involved, so that when the decision is made we will have the proper transportation links in Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, certainly, do a lot of talking to the people. Of course, you should consult with the Member for Torngat Mountains who was not aware of the situation.
I have had calls over the weekend and again this morning from people on the Coast of Labrador who were upset, especially as it relates to tourism on the Labrador Coast. We know there are some celebrations in the coming year and so on, and this has a negative impact, even the rumors of such a thing happening.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: Who has he consulted with, in Labrador, on this process? Has he indeed consulted with even the members for Labrador so we can put these rumors to bed, and it is not true that we will be using a freight boat to bring tourists to Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: I want to remind the hon. member that this government has done more for transportation in Labrador than any other government in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: This government is committed to providing the best transportation possible for the people in Labrador, whether it be by road or by boat.
This government will be consulting with the people in Labrador to make sure that we have the right mix of the right transportation infrastructure in Labrador to look after the needs of the people of Labrador. This government is committed to looking after the transportation needs of Labrador more than the government that was in power for the last seventeen years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, that remains to be seen. The now Minister of Mines and Energy was a former Minister of Transportation at the time who stood in this House on December 9, 1997 and said: Government road initiatives in Labrador will not be carried out at the expense of Coastal Labrador residents. Government will continue to provide a quality level of service, and they will not trade off the Labrador ferry system.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. There ought not to be lengthy preamble.
MR. SHELLEY: I ask the minister today, on behalf of the people in Labrador who are disgusted with this - even a proposal - that the minister will do the honourable thing today and take away this proposal totally so the people in Labrador will have the ferry service that they deserve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the former, Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was outlining -
AN HON. MEMBER: Former, former.
MR. BARRETT: The former, former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was outlining this government's commitment to transportation in Labrador. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about, because we have not determined yet what types of boats are going to be on - the Labrador ferry.
Right now we are consulting with the people of Labrador. We are trying to get their input. Once we have their input, then we will make decisions on what kind of boats are needed on the Labrador Coast.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This government, in its Throne Speech, said it is committed to a vigorous examination of the adjacency principle to ensure our approach protects the viability of rural communities. Of the 112 million pounds of shrimp harvested in the waters off Northern Newfoundland, only about 350 people found work in processing plants.
When does this government intend to live up to its commitment by landing more shrimp for processing in our plants on the Northern Peninsula?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member across the floor for his question. I think the question stems from the roadblock last week from residents in the area, especially from Black Duck Cove. I have a lot of sympathy for the plant workers in Black Duck Cove as they see fish leaving the area, because I have the same thing happening in my own district. The problem with the plant in Black Duck Cove is not necessarily the resource. As the hon. member knows, I met with the residents of Black Duck Cove during the Easter break. I went to the St. Barbe district and met with them. I have since met with them here in St. John's. The Deputy Premier has met with them, the Premier has met with them, and we are doing everything that we can to see if we can get that plant open this summer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Shrimp landed in Newfoundland makes up only a small percentage of the overall shrimp quota. Most of the shrimp goes to foreign countries and to other provinces. Has this government developed any new strategies to pressure the federal government to allocate more of the offshore quota to Newfoundland so that places like the Northern Peninsula can have a future?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the hon. member knows the position of this government when it comes to offshore allocations of shrimp or any shrimp that is allocated for non-Newfoundland and Labrador users. We have made that point to the federal government time and time again, with regard to the adjacency principle as well. There are a number of problems associated with that principle, and I think that your colleague who sits next to you knows; we had this discussion when I was in St. Anthony last Friday. The fact of the matter remains that even if we were to allocate or to say that the adjacency principle is in place on the Northern Peninsula and fish landed on the Northern Peninsula had to stay on the Northern Peninsula, your colleague who sits next to you, having been a fisherperson himself, would know that under our jurisdiction we cannot prevent boats from going elsewhere. If we were to stop the fish from coming off the Northern Peninsula, we might find that these boats could land anywhere else in the Province, or Quebec for that matter. That would not help the economy of the Northern Peninsula. In fact, you might find that a number of truckers and a number of off-loading facilities in the area might be out of work as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. As the minister is aware, there has not been a resident judge in Wabush or in Labrador West for some time. While a judge visits periodically to hold trials, the police do not have access locally to a judge when they require it, causing them to travel - two officers and the person they have apprehended, to lay charges - either to Goose Bay or St. John's, each trip costing thousands and thousands of dollars in airfares and hotels, simply to appear before a judge. I ask the minister if he believes this is an appropriate way to carry out justice in this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, for some years now we have had one resident judge in Labrador, that being Judge James Igloliorte, who is stationed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. He was supported by judges from the Island who worked the circuit system on the southern part of the Island, as well as Wabush area, as well as the Northern Coast.
Last fall, we rectified this situation in part by appointing a second resident judge, Judge Bill English, who took up residence in Labrador. In the last twelve months we have, in fact, doubled the number of judges in Labrador. My understanding is that both judges working out of Happy Valley-Goose Bay were going to be able to provide sufficient services for all of Labrador, so you had two full-time permanent judges rather than one full-time judge and a circuit system.
Now, I will certainly undertake to check with Chief Judge Reid, and if there are any problems whatsoever in what currently is happening in Labrador, I would certainly be happy to check into it and report back to the member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again to the minister, I appreciate his checking into the matter but I ask the minister, after he checks into the matter and bears out all of the facts and the costs that are associated with the system as it is today, would he be willing to look at the possibility of reinstating a resident judge in Labrador West like we have had for many years in the past?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared at this time to make any such commitment. I am prepared to make a commitment that we will investigate the facts as they exist. We have lots of places in this Province that used to have resident judges or, years ago, magistrates. Port aux Basques, Springdale, come to mind. What I am suggesting here is that we will check out and see if the service that is to be provided is, in fact, being provided.
No doubt, cost is one of the relevant considerations. If, in fact, it is cheaper to have a judge posted in Wabush rather than having judges flying in with the support court staff, that is obviously an option. I am not prepared to commit at this time that it will be done. I want the facts first.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is to the Minister of Health and Community Services. Minister, back approximately fifteen months ago, the then Minister of Health and Community and the now Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador made a commitment to the people in the Clarenville area, and showed budgeting in the Budget that was delivered fourteen months ago, that a dialysis unit and dialysis centre would be placed in Clarenville to service the surrounding area. Since that time there have been at least six dates put forward that this dialysis centre would be open. I ask the minister if he would confirm today that this centre is going in Clarenville, number one; and, number two, would he confirm to the people who have had their lives on hold, some of them as long as four years, in here in the hostel in St. John's, waiting for this dialysis centre to open in Clarenville so they can return home again and return to some form of normal life?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, the issue which the hon. member raises is a very important issue. I understand the importance of it to the constituents of his district. It is important right across the Province; indeed it is. There are several areas, including my own area of the Province that I represent, where there is a concern. It is a service that we have been moving to try and make available to the people in my own area.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, certainly I am well aware of the pressing need for the service. Government is committed to provide it in the Clarenville area. We still stand by that commitment, and that service will be put in place and will be made available to the people of the area. Obviously, there are some arrangements that have to be made prior to the service being implemented. There is training that has to take place. There is work that has to be done to the facility itself to accommodate the new service. These are all activities that need to take place. Our commitment is there and it will be provided to the people of the Clarenville area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I met with the then minister, now Premier, immediately after that budget was delivered. We met outside with a couple of people who were on dialysis here in St. John's. He indicated that he had sent a letter that morning to the Peninsula Health Care Board, allowing them to go and order the equipment. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: When will the dialysis centre in Clarenville be open?
The minister talked about training people, which is important. I understand there is special training. Will the minister also confirm that some of the people who have been trained to go to work in this centre have now waited so long for the centre to open that they had to go back and take refresher courses?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, I cannot confirm what the hon. member is saying.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
MR. SMITH: What I would say to the hon. Opposition House Leader: The hon. member asked me if I could confirm, and I said I could not. If you want to confirm for him, that is fine.
MR. SULLIVAN: I will confirm it. That is true. (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: I must say, Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to have an in-house expert on everything. The hon. member opposite seems to (inaudible) himself on that all the time.
Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member's question, which is indeed a very important question, my understanding of the work that is ongoing is that it should be completed by the latter part of June and indeed the service itself should be operational in July.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, thank you.
I would like to continue the line of questioning of the Member from Bonavista South, because, Mr. Speaker, at the time the former Minister of Health, the now Premier, announced the funding for the dialysis center in Clarenville, he also announced the same for St. Anthony. Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northern Peninsula have been calling me and asking what is happening, that here we are, fifteen months later, and still no dialysis centre.
I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Has the engineering work been done, as I understand it has, in St. Anthony; has the site been identified, as I understand it has, in St. Anthony; and why is it fourteen months, fifteen months now since this announcement and we still don't have a centre? As I understand it, it is going to be October before anything happens down there. So I would like for the minister to stand up today, Mr. Speaker, and confirm a date for the people of St. Anthony so that they can get this much needed service.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was waiting to see if the hon. Opposition House Leader was going to give the answer prior to my being able to - well, I thank him for deferring to me in this instance.
I will say to the hon. member: Again, not to downplay the importance of the issues being raised here - and I understand where he is coming from, as I do the hon. Member for Bonavista South, because I, too, have had to deal with it in my own area - with regard to the service that he refers to, in fact the space designed for that area should be completed by the end of June and that program should be in place by this fall.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by over 250 concerned citizens in the communities of Reef's Harbour, Shoal Cove West, New Ferolle, Castor River North, Castor River South, and Bartlett's Harbour.
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in legislative session convened.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Reef's Harbour, Shoal Cove West, New Ferolle, Castor River North, Castor River South, and Bartlett's Harbour.
WHEREAS the undersigned residents are concerned about the proposed spraying program for the area in the summer of 2001; and
WHEREAS the people of the area believe that past spraying programs have not been effective in controlling the hemlock looper and that the spraying of insecticides can be harmful to human health and the environment;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to consider the health and environmental concerns of the residents of Reef's Harbour, Shoal Cove West, New Ferolle, Castor River North, Castor River South and Bartlett's Harbour, and to further investigate before proceeding with the proposed spraying of this area this coming summer.
And as duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, the undersigned residents are very concerned about their health and the health of their children and the environment. Realizing the harmful effects that insecticides have on human health and the environment, they believe that the two planned dosages of insecticide spraying in the Castor River area will be damaging to their health and the water supply, and the existing vegetation will be adversely affected.
Mr. Speaker, the area residents believe that the pest spraying programs have not been effective in controlling the hemlock looper, and the spraying of insecticides has unnecessarily placed the health of the community at risk.
What the people of the area are asking, Mr. Speaker, is for the government to carefully consider these concerns and to investigate further before a decision on spraying is finalized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker. The motion is that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of this government.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Motion 1. I believe the hon. Member for Baie Verte adjourned debate on the motion.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today, Mr. Speaker, to rise for a few minutes with respect to Motion 1, and make a few comments with respect to the Budget which was presented in March of this year. I believe the actual presentation date, Mr. Speaker, was March 22, at which time, during the reading of the Budget Speech, what was being proposed by government members opposite was presented to the people of the Province. Of course, members on both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, have an opportunity to join in debate, either speaking in support of what was being proposed during Budget 2001, or making critical commentary with respect to various issues, obviously, by members on this side of the House who have some serious objections and concerns with respect to what was being presented in this year's Budget.
Last week it was debated at length in this House when it was presented by members on this side that a motion of non-confidence be debated fully, which debate was terminated and concluded last week.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note, I guess, that a full assessment of the economic performance of the Province has to be taken into account and has to be addressed when obviously making any sort of reasonable attempt to comment in response to what is being presented to the people of this Province in Budget 2001.
When we look at the economic performance, there are certain points that have to be raised in response and I will include some of them. One, the GDP growth this year is expected to drop to 2.1 per cent from 4.7 per cent last year, as a result of softer American markets. Secondly, crude oil exports have clearly been the principal driver of growth in the Province since 1998, accounting for over half of the growth in gross domestic product. Without Hibernia, Newfoundland's economy would have grown at about half the national average, which is somewhere around 2.2 per cent. It is easily seen, when we look at these figures, the importance that the offshore industry has with respect to the overall budgetary picture as it relates to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Despite oil prices expected to average some $24 a barrel U.S. in the year 2001, the volume of oil exports will not increase as much as previously expected, due in part to the delay in production start-up at Terra Nova, which is now at least a year behind schedule. It will be interesting to see when the people of this Province can look forward to the first production of oil as it relates to the Terra Nova project. Of course, it will be interesting to see in terms of the overall public debate and the public issues that are being raised, particularly as it relates to manpower and a variety of projects that presumably one would think, in accordance with what the principles of the Atlantic Accord are all about, would hire, hopefully the majority of whom would be, in fact, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Other exports, such as iron ore, newsprint and fish, are also expected to weaken with slower growth in the U.S. Again, Mr. Speaker, the reason why these particular points are being made at this time is that these are used to counter some of the very positive spin that is being given to Budget 2001 by members and ministers opposite.
A Statistics Canada survey released on February 21, 2001, predicts private sector investment in the Province will be down sharply from the fiscal year 2000. Again these are, I would say, non-partisan reports. These are reports that have been presented to us by Statistics Canada. Again, it is interesting to note that this type of information, these types of statistics, this type of data, must be used to counter and be used to show both sides of what ordinarily is given a positive spin by members opposite when we see a very non-partisan report suggesting that private sector investment in the Province will be down from the previous fiscal year.
Employment and population growth is out of sync with GDP growth, Mr. Speaker. Newfoundland was the only Province to lose jobs and population last year despite the Province's leading growth in GDP. The Province will continue to lose jobs and population in 2001 as the economy slows down. Of course, this is a phenomenon, Mr. Speaker, which is unique to the past seven or eight years in our Province, when we see our smaller communities, in particular, being depleted; when we see young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians finding it necessary to leave their home communities; when we see young families with preschool age children finding it necessary to leave Newfoundland and Labrador, all of which results in a slowdown in our economy and an almost termination of any real job prospects, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, as our young people continue to leave.
After three years of nation-leading growth in Gross Domestic Product the gap between the unemployment rate in Newfoundland and the unemployment rate in the whole of Canada continues to widen. So, again, even though members opposite will paint a very rosy picture and will present a very positive spin on Budget 2001, we continue to see the widening of the gap as it relates to the unemployed in this Province as a statistic. In 1989 the gap was 8.3 percentage points and it widened to 8.6 percentage points in 1998, and 9.9 percentage points in 2000. Again, when there is an analysis done and the details and statistics are carefully scrutinized we see a very different situation. A very different fiscal outlook, I would suggest, Mr Speaker, when an analysis is done of the real economic performance as it relates to ordinary, day-to-day Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Offshore oil and gas continues to provide a substantial momentum for business expansion, certainly in this region of the Province, from the recycling of resource-related income. In St. John's, for example, the unemployment rate is under 10 per cent, compared with an unemployment rate in the 20 per cent range for the rest of the Province. So we see a real disparity. Obviously it is good news for this region of the Province but it is certainly an unhealthy situation that exists in many parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. As I have indicated, we see young people leaving. We see families with preschool age children finding it necessary to leave. We see a dismal outlook, I would say, Mr. Speaker, for people who ordinarily would want to stay in their communities but, by necessity, had no choice other than to leave and either to go to other parts of the Province or, in most cases, to other parts of the country, particularly, Western Canada. So, Mr. Speaker, this is the real reality. This is the reality that is facing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today, despite what members opposite wish to portray and despite the very picture that members opposite wish to paint in terms of giving a good news review and a good news budget as it relates to what was presented in this House some two short months ago.
In terms of revenue, Mr. Speaker, the Province has two main sources of revenue. These are first and foremost federally funded revenues, mainly equalization, and through what is known as the CHST, which is the Canadian Health and Social Transfer. Secondly, the Province receives and is the recipient of revenues from our own source revenues, such as harmonized sales tax, income tax, gasoline tax, and other taxes as were presented in the handout at the time of the presentation of the Budget two months ago; as well as revenues from various fees, licences, and fines. Again, when there is an assessment done of both federal-source revenues and those provincial revenues, it is seeing exactly what this Province has to play with and the ability of the Province to be able to fund its own existence and compare it to the services and the benefits that it has to provide to the people of the Province.
Some figures include the following: total federal-source revenues in the fiscal year 2000-2001, including the sales tax transitional assistance and statutory subsidies, was $1.5 million compared to - I should go through these figures in more detail - was $1.54 million compared to $1.505 million the previous year. Again, Mr. Speaker, we see a discrepancy with respect to federal-source revenues.
The Ontario economy expanded more than expected in 1999 and 2000, which means transfer payments, re estimates, may give the Province additional revenues in the year 2001. A higher transfer means Newfoundland's economy is doing less well relative to wealthier provinces. Of course, this is largely due to the factor of our population. Obviously, what we receive as a Province is very often a result of the numbers of people who live in our Province. The more people leave, the lower we receive. So it is a two-edged sword, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker.
Equalization and CHST are distributed on a per capita basis as my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, just indicated. A net decline of one person in the population costs the Province about $2,500, according to the notes that I have prepared; $2,500 a year in equalization and CHST transfers. One person, when you combine both. When one person leaves the net result of the departure of just one individual is approximately $2,500 in reduced revenues to this Province, resulting from the source known as either equalization or CHST.
The $40,000-plus net loss in population since the mid-1990s have cost this Province - if we do the math quickly - approximately $100 million a year in transfer payments from Ottawa. So if we use the figure of $40,000 - and my guess is, Mr. Speaker, that that figure is conservative compared to the early to mid-1990s - in terms of the numbers of, particularly, young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have left this Province, that fact alone has cost this Province in excess of $100 million a year in revenue that we would ordinarily and otherwise have received from Central Canada. That is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. So we lose it in many ways. The individuals are leaving reluctantly. The individuals are leaving because they have no choice, in search of further employment. The fact that they have left and the fact that they had no choice but to leave results in this Province being further disadvantaged, in a global sense, because of less amounts being directed to this Province from Ottawa as a result of the combined CHST and equalization formula.
Equalization payments will fall as the Province's own resource revenues grow. The Province will lose some $7 from equalization for every $10 it receives in royalty and tax revenues from oil and gas, and more than $8 for every $10 in revenue from Voisey's Bay. Again, when we see exactly what the importance of these very significant industries are to us, and when we do an analysis of what in terms of dollars and cents it means to the Province, it is a sad commentary. It is a sad reflection of the reality that these industries have for us when we take into account the counterbalance, and we take into account what we gain in one hand and what we lose in the other because of the formulas, equalization formulas and clawback regimes.
The CHST transfer to Newfoundland will increase some 22 per cent over the five years from 2001 to 2006. While transfers to Ontario and Alberta, for example, will increase 43 per cent and 48 per cent respectively and largely due to the per capita effect, the per capita impact, the per capita equation that we are dealing with. If we go down, our population goes down. Provinces that drive the economy in this country - namely Ontario and Alberta, obviously because of their economies and increase in their population - we see formulas being assessed by this country being used to the advantage of these provinces. Again, it is a province like Newfoundland and Labrador that is negatively impacted upon simply because our people, through no fault of their own, have to leave. Young people have to leave to find work. Young people have to leave to satisfy exorbitant student debt obligations. Where better to do it? Perhaps in Fort McMurray, Alberta or Tumbler Ridge, British Columbus, where they can go make a few dollars, make a significantly higher income than they would, unfortunately, in our own Province to offset the impact of a student loan which, if they did not move, would only be strangling, I would say, and eventually insurmountable to the point that they cannot even meet their daily needs with respect to ordinary daily costs such as heat, light, shelter and what not. So our young people have to leave.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, the fact that they had to leave, not only does it affect that individual personally but it affects all of us because of a very unfair equalization formula which is driven on a per capita basis resulting in the fact that we receive, as a Province, less income and less benefits from Central Canada because of an overall depopulation. It is a sad commentary I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, and it reflects poorly on a country that appears to be saying certainly to one another as provinces, a country that appears to be saying that this is good enough; that this is acceptable; that this type of regime is acceptable; that it is okay for one province to be treated in this fashion. I simply say, Mr. Speaker, no it is not good enough. Really this country, if it is truly a federation of provinces, provinces of presumably where people are equal and are treated fairly and in an equitable fashion, it is not good enough for a federal government to say that this type of fiscal regime, this type of tax regime, this type of equalization formula is fair and in the interest of all Canadians, because it is not, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, we have people in certain regions, particularly our own region, where young people being disadvantaged individually but upon their leaving the Province and the 540,000 souls who are left are disadvantaged collectively because of a system that appears to be acceptable by a government obviously which is insensitive to the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
A few comments in addition, Mr. Speaker. With respect to our own source revenues, I would just like to make a few brief comments. Newfoundland's own source revenues in 2000-2001 where up about $135 million from the previous year and federal revenues were up some $35 million, for an overall increase of less than 5 per cent. Personal income tax revenues will decline in 2001 and 2002 if this government proceeds with phase two of the planned income tax cut. The loss will probably be in the range of some $20 million to $30 million. If the U.S. and Canadian economies slow as predicted, government revenues will be affected, especially revenues from consumer spending. These types of realities, Mr. Speaker, had to be taken into account, cannot just be summarily dismissed, cannot be overlooked because it impacts so significantly on the good news spin that was presented by members opposite on March 22, I believe it was, when the budget was presented. So, Mr. Speaker, it has to be presented and the public of this Province have to be given the information in its true context of what a total fiscal and economic analysis is and what it means to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Government spent $173 million more in 2000-2001 than it did in the previous year. Over 50 per cent of the increased spending was in health care. That fact, I think, most people in this Province would have no difficulty with. Thirty-four cents of every dollar spent on Health and Community Services; fifteen cents on debt servicing; thirteen cents on elementary-secondary education; eight cents out of that dollar, Mr. Speaker, on Works, Services and Transportation; six cents on post-secondary; and six cents on social assistance. The expenditure does not include the $50 million operating deficit of hospital boards or the $3 million operating deficit of school boards. Public sector wage settlements, operating deficits in health and education, the promised 10 per cent reduction in tuition fees for Memorial University students and normal cost escalations will raise expenditures close to $4.0 billion in 2001-2002.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): (Inaudible) time has expired.
Does the member have leave to clue up?
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just for a couple of moments if I may, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Government will have to cut programs or find nearly $300 million in additional revenues to finance expenditure programs in the fiscal year 2001-2002. Finding that amount of money
may be difficult to do in a slowing economy.
Just a comment or two on the deficit. Government will probably declare an operating deficit of around $5 million for last year. The actual deficit was $221 million, we submit, when the operation deficits of twelve health care boards, ten school boards, forty-two Crown agencies, and the government's share of the unfunded liability for pension plans are factored in. The actual deficit for next year will be closer, we would submit, to some $240 million.
It is this type of analysis, Mr. Speaker, that we feel, on this side of the House, that must be presented. The public of the Province must be given both sides of the story. It is not always a rosy picture, which is often what is being portrayed by government members, but when there is an analysis done of the true, economic performance of this Province, how young people are being impacted individually, and how we, as Newfoundlanders, are being impacted upon collectively and globally, we see a very different picture.
It is incumbent upon us, as Opposition members, to make sure that there is a balance, there is a counter-argument, and there is the truth. That is what, in the last few minutes, Mr. Speaker, we have attempted to do.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to have a few minutes today to speak on Budget 2001 and, I guess, to have an opportunity, if nothing else, to raise some concerns that have been raised in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's and throughout the Province about the performance of this government and the caretakers of the public purse. I guess, Mr. Speaker, it is an opportunity for us, on this side of the House, to question some of the concerns and, from a district point of view, to bring forward some of the issues and the concerns that people have in our districts as they relate to how the public purse is expended and how these people are affected by that.
I will take the opportunity, if I may, to make a few comments in regard to the issues that are out there. The issues in my district are no different than the issues in most districts. I certainly want to touch on a few of those today.
Over the past weekend, one that has come to light, and one that is a major, major concern with the people I represent, is the condition of the roads and the highways throughout Placentia & St. Mary's. I would like to take a few minutes, if I could, to touch on those. I have had calls from people on one end of my district, on the far community of my district, which is St. Shotts, down in the bottom of St. Mary's Bay, right from St. Shotts right down to Ship Harbour, which is basically, pretty well, getting down to the bottom of Placentia Bay. There is an incredible amount of kilometers in my district that need to be addressed, that needs some attention by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.
Back in January, when we received correspondence from the minister's office asking us to put forward some of the highlights, some of the concerns and some of the priorities that we had in our district, I took it upon myself to leave one end of my district, as I said, in Ship Harbour, and drive to St. Shotts and measure off - for my own information, and information that I could pass on - the distance and the amount of kilometers that needed attention. Mr. Speaker, needless to say, there is 100 kilometers of paving in my district that needs to be addressed in some way shape or form. It needs to be addressed in recapping, if possible, or certainly some heavy maintenance needs to be done in the district.
It is 100 kilometers and, when I did some inquiring on that, I found that there was approximately, give or take, a cost associated with recapping a kilometer of asphalt in the tune of $71,000. That is what I was told, Mr. Speaker. I stand to be corrected on that, but that is what I was told by some officials. It is around $71,000 to recap one kilometer. Based on the 100 kilometers that I need in my district, that would give you a total of around $7.1 million that I would need to address the concerns that have been raised in my district in relation to the roads.
When I look at the provincial roads program, under the Budget this year, I find that we have, in ballpark figures, around $22 million in roads this year. In the provincial capital roads program, there is an expenditure in the Budget of around $22 million.
As I said earlier, certainly from my own measurements, I would need about $7.1 million to address all of the concerns in my district, knowing full well that I am not going to end up with one-third of the provincial Budget. If the Minister of Forestry was still the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I may get one-third of the provincial Budget, but I am not going to be able to get one-third of the provincial Budget from the Member for Bellevue.
Mr. Speaker, this allowing $22 million for the roads program - if memory serves me correctly, back in 1989 in the last Tory government that we had in the Province, in the last year of that government, we had over a $40 million roads program in the Province. Twenty-two million dollars to address all of the concerns in the Province. I understand that the minister has in excess of a couple of hundred million dollars worth of priority applications, or areas of concern that value over $200 million of work that needs to be done in the Province. Certainly, I fully understand that he is not going to be able to address all of the concerns that we have.
Last week, I brought forward a petition here in the House, signed by over 700 residents of St. Mary's Bay, to address the concerns with Route 90. If I could take a moment to go through my district and to explain the concerns that I have right from the road in St. Shotts up through Peter's River, St. Stephen's and St. Vincent's, and from St. Vincent's right into Gaskiers, St. Mary's, Riverhead, right up through St. Mary's Bay, Route 90, right up to Salmonier Line, there are some major concerns there. To be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, there is a danger in operating a vehicle on that road now, and certainly the safety of the traveling public and the people who are traveling back and forth on school buses. There are a lot of concerns there on Route 90.
Mr. Speaker, coming down through the Town or Mount Carmel, the mayor and the council of Mount Carmel have put forward to me concerns they have with that area. They would certainly like to see the minister address those concerns, whether it is through maintenance or whether it is through new funding, but the road through Mount Carmel needs attention and needs of have an expenditure allotted for that particular piece of road.
Mr. Speaker, another piece of road that we have leading in between Colinet and North Harbour, leading into the community of North Habour, there is some major work needed with that road there, and something that I think the maintenance budget of the department could take care of in a lot of cases. We do not need 100 per cent recapping. There is a fair amount of work that could be done under the maintenance budget. Certainly, that particular piece of road there leading into the community of North Harbour is something that I believe - I just drove over it again this morning - you could look at under a maintenance budget and do a fair amount of work with it.
As you travel out through North Harbour on to Branch, the road between Branch and St. Bride's especially, right up to the Cuslett lookout, Cuslett dump, up on the hill up there, we need some major, major work done in that area. The connecting road down to the community of Point Lance need work, but Branch country need recapping in some places. There is a lot of that, Mr. Speaker, that you would not handle under maintenance. Just this past weekend, with the amount of travelers that were on the go, with tourists, with people who were out and about for the weekend after the long winter, for the first time, see a big need and certainly a huge need to have some attention put to that road.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to have the Minister of Tourism and the Minister for Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs in the district. We took the time to drive out through Route 100, out the Cape Shore, down through St. Mary's Bay, and saw for themselves, first-hand the concerns that have been raised by myself and other people in the area, hoping that they can impress upon their colleague at the Cabinet table, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that these roads certainly need to be looked at.
When you travel right in through Route 100, into the Town of Placentia, there is some major work needed in the town itself - Jerseyside hill, down through Ferndale. There are some places there in Freshwater that need attention. In Placentia itself there is some attention needed right throughout the whole area. Go down into the community of Fox Harbour, and there is some work there that could be carried out under the maintenance budget. Down in the community of Ship Harbour, there is some major work needed. I have had presentations made to me from people in Ship Harbour. I raised that issue here today with the minister also, that we need to look at the community of Ship Harbour in relation to trying to develop a tourism industry down there, Mr. Speaker. They need some work done with the road down there also.
When you look back through the whole district, from Ship Harbour to St. Shotts, there is some major work needed. Some major attention needs to be given to that section of the Province which needs work and hopefully, by raising the issue here today - and I will continue to raise the issue over the next few days as long as we are here in the House, that we have a growing tourism industry. We have the Argentia ferry beginning soon over the next few weeks. We have the Argentia ferry starting to come in and bring tourists to our area. We spend millions of dollars on tourism development and tourism marketing here in the Province and, I can guarantee you, after listening to people this past weekend who visited our area, a major impediment to our tourism this year is going to be the concern that we have with the roads in my area. I talked to a gentleman the other day, Mr. Speaker, who was travelling out there in a travel-trailer, an RV or whatever you want to call it, and he had a really rough ride over the roads.
As you leave Argentia and you lead right out to the Cape Shore you go to one of the jewels in the tourism of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is the Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, after listening to people on the weekend, that if the issue of the roads is not addressed in that area we are going to receive a lot of complaints this year, not only from my area but I am sure the complaints will go back to the Minister of Tourism and his department. Over the next few days, as the asphalt plants get up and running for this construction season, I understand that is a concern and a problem that we have too but certainly that issue needs to be addressed. I understand the confines of the budget. I understand that everything cannot be addressed and all the concerns cannot be addressed, Mr. Speaker, but I have no other choice but to raise the issue once again here in the House when I have the opportunity to say a few words. The minister told me himself last week that he was hoping to visit the district over the weekend. I will be checking with him later on today to see if in fact he did, and if he did I am sure that he will understand the situation as it is. In the community of St. Bride's it is just treacherous, Mr. Speaker. It is a safety issue, it is a tourism issue, it is certainly an issue of great concern to the people in the area and hopefully, by continuing to raise the issue here in the House, we will see some of that addressed.
Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of concerns. Another concern that we have in my district is in relation to what the fishery will hold for this summer. A little over a month ago some representatives from the Town of St. Mary's, in my district, came forward. We met with some people at the Department of Fisheries in relation to the plant in St. Mary's and the concerns that have been raised there. Just a few years ago there was a workforce of 210 people in the plant at St. Mary's and last year that shrunk down to less than thirty people due to not being able to get enough product into that community to have processing done there at the plant; from 210 down to thirty. Out of those thirty there are only a handful of people who managed to obtain enough hours to qualify for EI. It is a big concern leading into this season, with the fishing season started and crab starting to be landed again in the district.
There is a major concern with the community of St. Mary's, whether the plants are going to open at all this year or whether it is going to open with a bare minimum of activity. It is a concern that we have. In a lot of cases people have come forward with the concern of the amount of crab that leaves the Province unprocessed; the amount of crab that leaves the Province that is not processed here but is processed elsewhere. My understanding, from the meetings that we had, is that over 90 per cent of the crab landings last year left the Province and was processed elsewhere or sold in sections. This is a big concern in the community of St. Mary's, in the community of Placentia and out on the Cape Shore, right down through my district, for the simple reason that because of the amount of crab that is leaving the Province unprocessed a lot of plant worker's jobs and processing jobs are leaving with it also.
Mr. Speaker, out in St. Bride's we have a concern with the plant. Over the past year or so there have been some negotiations ongoing concerning the plant in St. Bride's in regards to trying to sell the plant. The owner, Supreme Seafoods, is trying to sell the plant. From what I can understand, Mr. Speaker, it kind of has the amber light. I will not say the red light yet but it certainly has the amber light now and things have slowed down in that process. People in that area are very concerned about that. Hopefully, over the next week or so, we will get a definite answer on where that is going to go; but certainly, the people in that area are very concerned. Once again, we have an incredible amount of product that is landed on the wharf in St. Bribe's; in excess of 2 million pounds of crab. Again, we do not have a pound of crab processed in that community or anywhere close for that matter, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, while the harvesters are getting to sell their product the processors are not getting the opportunity to do anything with it, and we have a lot of jobs being lost through that process.
A few years ago there were a couple of viable plants in the Placentia area, one in Argentia and one in Jerseyside. Over the past few years both plants have ceased to exist. The one in Jerseyside burnt down about four years ago and the one in Argentia ceased to operate. The concern with the one in Jerseyside more so, is that there was a processing licence with that plant and for some reason or other that licence is not there now. We are very concerned with the status of that licence. I have made inquiries to the Minister of Fisheries and his department over the past week. I am waiting for a response on that to find out what the status of that licence is because, once again, there is a large amount of product landed in Jerseyside, in the island there in Placentia Bay from fishermen out of the Placentia area and not one pound of that product is being processed in that area. Hence, again, thousands of hours and hundreds of processing jobs going up over the hill along with the crab itself. So, definitely it is a concern that has been raised.
When I look at some of the stats over the past year, Mr. Speaker, the landed value of fish product in the Province in 1988 was around $183 million, the landed value. In the year 2000 the landed value of fish products in the Province reached over $500 million; somewhere around $500 million. That is the landed value. That $570 million of landed value was from approximately 12,000 harvesters and this transformed into over $1 billion in sales by these products; a billion industry that is creating less and less jobs. It has to be a concern for everybody here in the House, and definitely for everybody in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, we have gone from 27,000 plant workers in 1988 down to, in the year 2000, around 10,400. Almost 17,000 people have lost their jobs. While we understand on this side of the House, and I am sure the people of the Province understand that the changing fishery certainly eliminates many of the processing jobs. There is a major concern that it is going to continue to eliminate. There is a possibility of crab quota cuts, crab price cuts that are going to affect the industry. When you look back at 1988 when there were 42,000 people involved in the fishery - 15,000 fishers and 27,000 processors - and in the year 2000 we have 12,200 fishers and 10,400 processors, for a total of 22,600 people involved in the fishery. It is a major concern, especially for rural Newfoundland. I am sure that the minister is fully aware of these figures and I am sure he is fully aware of the concerns. While there are no easy answers, we all have to work together to try to find something that can positively affect the people we represent and the districts that we represent. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, over the next year we have to try to find some positive answers for the many people who are out there.
The crab sector in the year 2000 created, on the average, around 500 hours of work for the processors and plant workers. They tell me that despite the highest wage rates in Atlantic Canada, the average plant worker earns around $5,000 before EI. Even with EI, the average plant worker in a crab plant in the Province earns a total annual salary between $11,300 and $14,500. Certainly, that is a major concern to expect people to live on that. Sure we have harvesters who are doing quite well, but as you can see from some of the stats that I put forward here today, there is a major concern with the plant workers in the Province.
We have had over the past number of years, right back to 1933 when the Newfoundland Royal Commission Report was done to raise concerns and address some of the problems in the fishing industry - we have been researched and documented forever. In 1967 there was a Royal Commission Report. In 1978 there was a report called: Setting a Course. In 1980: Managing All Our Resources. In 1981: Royal Commission on the Inshore Fishery. In 1982: The Fishery: A Business and a Way of Life. In 1982 we had: Navigating Troubled Waters; the Kirby Task Force. In 1993 we had another report called: Changing Tides. In 1993 we had another one called: Defining the Reality. In 1993 we had: Charting a New Course; the Cashin Task Force, and in 1997 we had the Report of the Auditor General of Canada. They all had to do with the fishing industry. We have been documented and researched to death, if you ask me. Now it is time that we sit down and try to create a vision and a future for the industry. In doing that, we have to maximize the returns and address the concerns in the global markets as they relate to the small communities here in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: By leave, just to finish up a few comments if I could, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MANNING: I thank you for leave to make a few closing comments.
Mr. Speaker, right now over 80 per cent of the products here in the Province - an immense amount of the product landed here in the Province which is creating jobs is in the crab fishery. Over the next year - from what I can understand - due to the Greenland crab coming onstream now being much more plentiful than it was in years past, and Russian crab coming into the market, that the buyers are seeing a big concern with the crab quotas for next year and the crab price as it goes into the market. With all these concerns that are being raised now, Mr. Speaker, certainly the fishery of the future is something that we all have to be concerned about.
The situation with rural Newfoundland is something that we all have to be concerned about. It is something that we have to get our heads around and start working together on because we are all here for the same reason, to do what we can for the people we represent and, hopefully, to provide a future for them. Mr. Speaker, it is a big issue. There are harvesting concerns out there. There are processing concerns out there and there are marketing concerns out there. Over the next little while we hope - for this side of the House and with the other side of the House - to work together on addressing some of these concerns to have the maximum return on a great industry like the fishery that has served us for over 500 years; to have a maximum return for the people of the Province so that we can continue to harvest the fish, process the product and continue to keep rural Newfoundland alive in whatever way we can. While we understand all of the concerns we also have to understand that these people are very, very concerned about their futures. As I touched on earlier, the amount of people who have left the industry in the past ten or twelve years is something that concerns us all. Hopefully, over the next little while we can get to address some of these concerns.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a few words today on the Budget. In particular, starting off anyway, I would like to speak about the roads. There has been a lot of talk in the last little while, by various members on both sides of the House, about roads, road work and what is needed to be done in the various districts. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, in the District of The Straits & White Bay North there is no exception.
As many members of the House would know, especially given the by-election last winter, they would have been around the district and seen the condition of a lot of our roads. They did not see them in their prime condition, I suppose, or maybe they did see them at their best. The roads in the winter - for roughly 98 kilometers of roads in the District of The Straits & White Bay North are still gravel roads. I listened to the Minister of Transportation the other day talking about roads and some of the work that has been done throughout the Province and how grateful we should be. I listened to the Budget, and the Budget basically says $18 million for road work throughout the Province. There were a lot of commitments made over the last number of years in relation to roads in this area. The people of Conche were told that the Conche road would be done within two years, that this road would be upgraded and, I guess, paved. The people of Boat Harbour had been told last year by the former Premier, and I believe again this winter in the by-election, that this road was number one on the list to be done this year. There must be a number of lists around the office of the Minister of Transportation, because it seems there are a lot of people throughout the Province who are number one on the list. With $18 million, the list is going to be much shorter than what is required to be done.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Conche, Boat Harbour, Croque, Wild Bight and Grandois - those areas in particular, are at the end of gravel roads, twenty-four, twenty-six kilometres long. In the case of Boat Harbour and Wild Bight, there are about eight or ten kilometers of gravel road there. In those cases, these people have to travel fairly extensive distances to get basic services, to go to hospitals, just to go shopping to buy the basis necessities of life when it comes to food, clothing and the like. They have to beat over these gravel roads, day in and day out. Certainly in the case of Conche and Croque roads, those are roads that were basically pushed through by logging contractors years ago. The provincial government has never spent any amount of money in doing anything with these roads. We have buses beating over them on a daily basis. We have transport trucks. Just the cost alone to the Department of Transportation to try and plough these roads and maintain them with graders and the like, I am sure the costs are quite high to maintain these roads while they are in their present state. An investment of a few million dollars in the short term would go a long ways in the long term to reduce the actual cost of maintaining the roads in the future.
These types of things, when we are talking about our budget, how can we expect in places like Conche, Croque, Boat Harbour, Wild Bight, Grandois, and the communities coming down through The Straits area, Green Island Cove, Green Island Brook, Eddies Cove, Savage Cove, Nameless Cove, Shoal Cove East, I guess, is another place that comes to mind. In all these communities in this district, with ninety-odd kilometers of gravel road, how can these people ever expect to have any kind of movement in the tourism industry, just for one, when people have to beat over these kinds roads to get there?
In a lot of these communities, people are challenged every day to try and find a way to earn a living and build some kind of a future, to maintain some kind of semblance of a community. If government chooses to not maintain or invest in basis infrastructure such as roads, then how can we expect to develop any industry or maintain any kind of semblance of an economy or anything in places like this?
Mr. Speaker, I certainly think that the Minister of Transportation, when he is getting around to announcing the rest of his road work, needs to look at this. He said some time last week about all the money that was put into roads in this district over the years. If you look at The Straits area, there has not been a penny spent on the roads in this area by the provincial government since the late 1970s and early 1980s when Route 430 was upgraded and paved. So, Mr. Speaker, you would be hard-pressed to find people in this area to be thankful for all the money that has been spent on roads here. Certainly, if you look in the cross-country area - that is what we call it anyway, the cross-country area - the Main Brook-Roddickton area, you know, a lot of the road work that has been done over there was done under the Trunk Roads Agreement. Certainly, the provincial government's money in these areas has been few and far between.
So, while the minister might get up and talk about the road work that has been done there in recent years, he would be hard-pressed to point out much in the way of provincial government money that was actually spend here to do it. Mr. Speaker, I hope that he is looking at this and taking this advice into consideration. He knows I gave him a letter of a list of priorities some time ago for road work in our area.
AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't got either other letter (inaudible)?
MR. TAYLOR: No.
I hope he has that letter anyway. Just the week before last he announced $310,000 for road work in this area; $310,000 now, when we have ninety-eight kilometres of gravel road. Some of those roads - twenty-six kilometres long in the case of Conche and twenty-four kilometres long in the case of Croque and Grandois, and all gravel. Terrible, terrible roads! Never anything done with them since the loggers pushed the roads through thirty years ago. He had the face, I would say, Mr. Speaker, to put out a press release saying that he was pleased; the face to put out a press release to say: Look what I have done for The Straits-White Bay North. Three hundred and ten thousand dollars to replace a few culverts is really all he has announced, Mr. Speaker, and nothing to be done for these communities at the end of the gravel roads.
MR. J. BYRNE: Punishment, is it?
MR. TAYLOR: Punishment, that is all. He is leaving them to be punished for living in these communities and having to beat over these roads, Mr. Speaker.
If the government is serious, certainly, about investing in rural communities and so on, I would suggest that they look a little bit closer at how they spend the money and look at changing the way they budget for basic infrastructure such as roads.
I go back, Mr. Speaker, to an issue that was brought up in Question Period earlier today. Myself and the Member for Bonavista South spoke on the announcement several months ago, fourteen or fifteen months ago, two budgets ago, Mr. Speaker, on the dialysis machine for St. Anthony and Clarenville, a dialysis centre. Certainly, over the past number of weeks or the past couple of months, actually, since the election and since I have been a member here, I have had numerous calls from the people in The Straits-White Bay North, people who are relying on dialysis machines to keep them alive, and/or somebody in their family who is relying on a dialysis machine to keep them alive while they are waiting for kidney transplants. Mr. Speaker, these people have had to leave the tip of the Northern Peninsula and move into St. John's in order to stay alive, and live in a hostel or rent an apartment or stay with relatives, or something like that, for extended periods of time.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, after hearing an announcement fourteen, fifteen months ago about the building or the opening, or whatever you mind to say, of a dialysis centre in St. Anthony, the people are asking the question: What is going on here? This was budgeted, this was announced; much hoopla. Certainly, I suppose that is what we were used to from this government and previous members in our district; much hoopla. Every now and then there would be a big splash -
MR. J. BYRNE: Much to do about nothing.
MR. TAYLOR: Much to do about nothing. Like Mr. Shakespeare said: Much ado about nothing.
The people are asking: Where is the dialysis machine, after fourteen, fifteen months? Of course, we know that you can't put everything in every hospital in this Province, but in the case of a dialysis machine and the funding being announced and people in the area having to leave for extended periods of time - we are not talking about coming to St. John's to have heart surgery or some such treatment as that. We are talking about extended care. The people of the area are wondering what has happened with it, and is the government truly committed to putting this facility in this area, so that the dozen or so people who are relying on this can access this service
in their own area.
While I am on health care, I guess I feel obligated to speak about the medical facility, the clinic in Flower's Cove. I guess the building was probably put there in the late 1970s early 1980s. Right now, the roof is in a state of disrepair on that facility. Certainly, there are a lot of concerns from the staff there and the people of the area. Give it a gale of wind next winter, if something is done with it, you could see this place carried off.
Mr. Speaker, in doing their budgets, again the government is not maintaining basic infrastructure in a lot of these communities, especially in places like the tip of the Northern Peninsula and the Strait of Belle Isle area, in particular. I think that in this area something has to be done on an urgent basis with the medical centre in Flower's Cove. The roof work needs to be done.
Mr. Speaker, some time ago we raised questions in this House about the federal program for - I am not too up on this health care stuff, but I do know that there was $500 million that the federal government had whereby provinces could access funding for health care and for equipment, basically. This government did not see fit to go after it. I have been through the hospital in Flower's Cove several times now in the past three or four months looking around the facility, seeing the kind of condition that the place is in, and looking at the conditions that the hospital workers, the health care providers, the nurses, the doctors and the LPNs have to work in, and see how they are challenged to try and provide some kind of health care to the people in The Straits area. Here we are with machinery there that is old, outdated, breaking down on a regular basis. We had an x-ray machine in Flower's Cove that was broken down for months. There is other equipment there that is outdated and needs replacing.
Mr. Speaker, this government did not even try to access some piece of that $500 million that the federal government had. Here we are with a budget before us today that we have been debating in this House now for what? I guess close to a couple of months we have been debating it off and on, running up deficits and challenged daily to try and provide health care services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the government did not even see fit to try and access some of this money.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we see my friend from St. Barbe here, the Member for the St. Barbe district, who was up earlier in Question Period and spoke about the dilemma of the plant workers in Black Duck Cove. Of course, the Black Duck Cove fish plant, although it is in the St. Barbe district, some of the workers come from The Straits & White Bay North district.
The problem in Black Duck Cove is not one that is limited to Black Duck Cove, but is shared by numerous comminutes around the Northern Peninsula, including: Englee, Conche, Roddickton, Bide Arm, Main Brook area. That area of the Province certainly has not seen much in the way of an operational fish plant since the cod fishery closed down in 1992.
Mr. Speaker, the real problem on the Northern Peninsula, as members would probably remember, that I said from time to time in the past, and certainly the Minister of Fisheries and Aqualculture would know from meetings that we have had, it is not that the people on the Northern Peninsula do not want to see fish trucked off the Northern Peninsula, but they want to see some share -
MR. J. BYRNE: Fairness (inaudible).
MR. TAYLOR: They want to see fairness. That is right, Mr. Speaker. They want to see fairness in how processing jobs are shared around this Province, and we have not seen that. We have not seen it in the past, and it appears that we are not going to see it in the future from this government. Ask anybody who is involved with the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador if, in their opinion, there is a development strategy, a long-term vision, for how we would like to see the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador maintained or continue to develop.
We have seen over the past number of years how, in 1988, we had three species that we were basically dependent upon: cod, crab, and caplin, that provided us with $183 million in landed value. In 2000, the top three provided us with $501 million in landed value. Now of course some people, politicians being politicians, try to take credit for this, but the people who truly deserve the credit for the increase in the landed value of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador are the people who go out and catch it. They are the ones who have been pushing the limits every day when they go out there in their boats and catch this fish and bring it back to shore.
What you see more than anything, Mr. Speaker, when you look at these figures and look at the fact that in 1988 the top three species, crab, caplin and cod, provided us with $183 million and 68 per cent of our landed value, what you see when you look at it a bit closer is that in 2000, with $501 million in landed value, the top three were cod, crab and shrimp. What is really telling is that now that accounts for 88 per cent of our landed value. While the government tries to wave flags once in awhile and take credit for the diversification that has taken place in our industry, the fact of the matter is that there has been very little in the way of diversification taking place in our industry, Mr. Speaker. What really has happened is that we have shifted - we have shifted, yes - we have diversified from primarily a cod fishery into primarily a crab and shrimp fishery. The real problem is that we are still- the success of the industry both in the processing sector and in the harvesting sector lies pretty much solely on the shoulders of the crab resource, Mr. Speaker, which accounts for 48 per cent of the landed value. I guess if you ask anybody in the industry, whether they are in a boat or in a processing plant, crab accounts for the profit margin, Mr. Speaker, and that in actual fact shrimp is a marginal industry at best when it comes to profits; very, very marginal, if at all profitable. Mr. Speaker, what we have is an industry that is resting on crab, and if something happens and the leg comes out from under the chair on crab, we are going to find ourselves in a very serious predicament.
If you look at the Budget Speech when it was read, you look at the Budget, you look at the Throne Speech some time ago, there is very little reference in spite of how important the fishing industry is to rural Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly to urban Newfoundland and Labrador. If you go out in Donovan's Industrial Park, you will not have to drive very far before you will find a business there whose livelihood depends in some way on the fishing industry around the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. I fear to think and to ask what would happen if crab were to go, in some way, down the road of cod, and what would happen to our industry and our communities.
Mr. Speaker, the government has to review its approach to the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador in how it has handled diversification, the lack of a commitment of funds to assist the industry; not to run an operation, Mr. Speaker, but in research and development: product research, product development. It is been terribly lacking, I think, on the part of both levels of government, both the federal government and the provincial government. There has really been lip service paid to it. If we are really going to be serious about diversification in this industry, and expanding our product lines and building on the success of the industry in recent years, then we have to give it a little bit more than -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. TAYLOR: Just a couple of seconds to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to continue?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have to be vigilant in the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker. There is a role for government to play in assisting in research and development and the diversification of this industry, because what we have seen in diversification in this industry in the last ten years has been as a result of the investment of fishermen and processors in this Province into the harvesting and processing sector, to be able to get in on the shrimp and crab fisheries that are outside the traditional grounds fished by the majority of inshore fishermen on this coast. We have to look at where we are going with the industry. We have to have a strategy. Our history has been one of knee-jerk reactions to issues, both local and larger, Mr. Speaker, where there is a plant that is in trouble in one area of the Province, in one community of the Province, and the people of the area lobby their member and lobby the minister and so on to try and deal with that issue; but if there was a strategy in place for the last ten years and we had the opportunity in the last ten years, since the moratorium on cod, to deal with this, Mr. Speaker, and put a strategy in place for the processing and harvesting sector of this industry, we did not do it and it is time for us to get on with it.
I notice the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said that he is committed to a review of fish processing licence policy. I say to the minister, that is absolutely needed in this industry, but I hope that he does not fall down on the job as his predecessor did in the core licence policy. He instituted a core licencing policy and then failed to put a strategy in place when we started to develop shrimp processing plants throughout the Province. Here we are today, Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador, with eleven shrimp processing plants. We have a plant here, as my friend here, the Member for St. Barbe spoke about earlier today. We have a plant that is built. Yes, there are legal problems there and, as the minister said earlier, the problem today with the plant in Black Duck Cove is one where, no matter what government did, it is not a resource issue. It is a legal dispute between companies over ownership. Yes, there is some merit to what the minister said, but, Mr. Speaker, the reason why there is a legal dispute in Black Duck Cove today is because there was a lack of resources and a lack of a plan, and a lack of a strategy in a processing sector of this industry over the past three, four, five years when shrimp plants were being built. As a result of that, Black Duck Cove is in the situation that it is today.
Here we are, continuing to build shrimp plants in Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be others open up and begin processing shrimp this year that did not process shrimp last year. As everybody knows, there are plants throughout the Province that are without resource, as we speak, and are wondering where they are going to get the resource this year to have some kind of a viable year and viable operation. At the same time, we are going on down our merry way with the fate of the shrimp industry and the fate of the industry as a whole resting solely on the shoulders of a declining crab resource and a weakening market for crab in light of changes in the global economy and changes in supply from Greenland, Russia, and other parts of Canada and the world. Here we are, waving flags and talking about how great our fishing industry is. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I know that it is a great industry and it is a great place to work if you can put up with rough water and salty water. It is a great industry but, as has been the case in the past, we are always pushing the limit in the fishery, unfortunately without a strategy for the long-term. If you do not have a plan for the long-term in the fishing industry, you will always get caught with your pants down some time in the short term.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to wrap up. I don't know who our next speaker is.
MR. SULLIVAN: Wally wants to say a few words.
MR. TAYLOR: I will turn it over to the Member for St. Barbe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, once again would like to start off talking about the fishery, I guess, with Black Duck Cove today. It is right on top of my agenda. Today, as we know, people up in Plum Point, people from Black Duck Cove and area, are out there blocking the roads and trying to deal with - in the only way they know how - a situation that is out of their control. They are out there out of frustration, because they feel that the Northern Peninsula is getting a raw deal from the resources that are around its shores. They feel there is something seriously wrong. It is not only the community of Black Duck Cove. There are number of communities on the Northern Peninsula that feel there has been a raw deal, because it is difficult to come to grips in a new and changed environment, a new business world where you go out there and the communities that were built because of the fishery around the shores can no longer be there, and yet their wharves are still used to land as much fish as there ever was, maybe, and the value worth. They find it very disappointing, very discouraging, and they just do not know how to deal with the situation.
For the last few years it has been in the fall that this reality has really hit. It has been in the fall that they have gone out there, protested and tried to find some solution to what ails the communities. This year, in Black Duck Cove's case, they have decided that the only thing that can be offered is not the solution, and that is make-work or JCP programs that will just survive you through the winter and then go. There has to be a fishery solution. If there is going to be a solution for those communities, they have to have a real base in the community.
Even though it is going to be quite difficult in how they achieve this, they know that the road is difficult and long but there is no alternative but to try. Many times those people have been told that it is more harm than good by blocking the road or whatever, but no one has been able to offer those people any solution in what would be a real -
AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody wants to do it.
MR. YOUNG: Nobody wants to do it, but nobody has offered any other alternative on how we can bring attention to it, because the fishery on the Northern Peninsula, as many places in this Province, was built on the fishery and we are far enough away from the centres where the investment has been made that if the fishery does not become a big part of our communities then there will not be any communities. We realize that, very much so. The different programs and the different alternatives, on their own, will not fix the ills of places like Black Duck Cove or Cow Head, which is another community that is out there that is very disappointed and discouraged with what they have seen, where they have seen large companies make deals where their small plant will not open so that the flow of fish can go as the larger companies wish.
When you sit down and think about a company, and you think about how it is 2 per cent or 5 per cent of the product that it is moving, and what it means to a company, when you see the very existence of this community all but disappear, it is very discouraging indeed.
Communities like Black Duck Cove, Cow Head, and many communities on the Northern Peninsula really are to the point where, if a solution is not found in the very near future, with the average age in those communities, we know that they have to go. To encourage and to keep anybody to stay and work in those communities is almost impossible. There are not enough young people there, there is not enough future there, there is not enough income, there is not enough of anything there for you to want to settle down. Really, we have been pushed to that point.
What has happened over this period of time - when we started back in the early 1990s, I looked at my community and I saw what it was and how I thought it was a viable place, a place that I enjoyed living in. To see it, less than ten years later, what this community could be, and how enjoyable it was to live there and bring up a family - it is a very different place. It happened in such a short period of time.
I think those people who are out there now are coming to realize that they are just not going to leave and they are going to find some means of staying there. I think eventually the government will be challenged to find a way to come up with and have some solution that is more broad based and more spread out than to go out there and have pinpoint solutions. I think that has been one of the things where the government has come out of there and said: If this, this and the other thing exists, then obviously another will. But what we have done is said: Okay, this exists and it will continue on from here regardless of what the real solutions, the problems and the real possibilities of the future were.
When they come out, I think one of the things that we want to look at is somehow - the first thing that comes to our mind is an adjacency, some way of leveling the playing field; because we know if the large business companies had their way, they would probably have all the processing plants here on the East Coast and there wouldn't be anything as far away as the Northern Peninsula. We know we have to have some way, some type of mechanism put in place, so that what we have is a possibility for our future. Today it does not exist because there is no adjacency. Neither our provincial government nor our federal government acknowledges our existence here or our need and want and decide to exist and continue on.
We have high numbers of shrimp coming in and hitting our shores. I suppose that is what has really woken us up in the first place up there, to know that we do not live in a place with no value. We live in a place that is very rich in what is around our shores, and there should be viable communities along the Northern Peninsula as there always was, because the value of the fishery is still there. Then again, I think, more so than that, when you start to look at that, the real value of the product never hits our shores; it is given away, there is some kind of trade-off. We have always talked about it, but now that we are out there and you see the value and the amount that comes ashore, and when someone tells you that is only one-third or one-fifth of what is caught every year, then it really brings into perspective how much is being taken away, and then we are saying: You really cannot live in a place like the Northern Peninsula and work. You have to go somewhere like Alberta if you want work, because there is no work here.
It appears to us that there is work here. It is just that someone decided that we are not going to work out of here and you must go elsewhere because the bottom line or whatever is going to be out of those communities. We must sit down and decide if the well-being of a company that we would invite to our communities to create employment for us is more important than the communities, and somewhere that flip had taken place.
I think, as we sit and look at the world from the Northern Peninsula, it does not seem we would be out there and willing to make that sacrifice, that we would do the ultimate by not being there, that we would move ourselves to another province to work at different jobs because it was the better thing. We know it is not the better thing for the community and we feel it must be that way. To sit down and have debates where people say: Yes, there is a trucking cost and there is a cost associated with doing business in such a way. It is still better for a processing company from ten hours away to go out of there and have a product that is of poorer quality. I think, when you go out there, take a product, put it on a truck and ship it for ten hours, it probably has a better chance to being a poor quality than when it came off the boat and went into a processing plant right next door.
When we go out there and sit down and those people put arguments to us as to why this has to be, it kind of loses the effect on some of the arguments that have been put forward. It has not been what we would consider traditionally good arguments. Quality is of the utmost importance. That is why they will sit down and argue that we have to have offshore quotas because the quality is the only thing that really matters. When the shrimp hits the land, then the quality issue goes away and it is only a matter of being more viable, being more efficient, that is the only argument. Those are two very different arguments. The people on the Northern Peninsula would like to somehow be able to see one argument continue on, and it all hold some water in a basket.
Sometimes when we sit there and wonder amongst ourselves, we feel that the holes in this basket are just too big for us. It just seems like we have been out there, and there was a pie out there. We all realized the pie and the shape, and there were going be slices cut out of it. When it was all said and done, we feel that the slice that was left for the people of the Northern Peninsula was a very small slice indeed.
I think the biggest part of the debate when we go to places like the northern shrimp coming on-line is that we go out there and sit down, and I think the main part of the debate is: How much do we have to leave in a place like the Northern Peninsula in order the take the rest out? I think that is what we try to find as a solution. If we are going to cut that in such a way, when we find that, then we know we can take the rest of it and carve it up.
We all must stick together to convince the people of the Northern Peninsula to make sure that we do not get too much of an insight of what is happening. We are a fair distance away, and I think one of the disadvantages we have is that we are not close enough to government, to have access to the government and have access to the people, the players, who make the decisions.
I think we can really see that in the northern shrimp. When you go out there and take the location of those stocks, and you think about how there were ten plants that came into operation when the northern shrimp came on-line, you think about where they were and what not, it did not seem all the arguments held through consistently It almost seemed like it had a lot of political flavor when it came to the decisions that were made and how it starts and stops, and deadlines are a big part of what happens, and, in the case of the Northern Peninsula, the deadline was past before we even knew that anything had started. That has happened so many times that we have never been able to get out there and take advantage of the opportunities out there. When that happens so many times, you almost convince yourself that they were never designed for you to know about it, that the pie was never big enough, the pot was never big enough, for us to have a good fair cut of this.
You see this in the fishery and in tourism, you see it in roads infrastructure, you see it in the IT sector; all of those things that appear to be designed as such that we are just not there on the entrance level with everybody else to pick and choose who will get the lion's share of the pot. Very rarely do you see places like the Northern Peninsula getting the lion's share of the pot. The debate seems to be, as I said, what is the bare minimum we would have to leave there, what is the bare minimum we would have to invest. That is the big question.
When I look at our opportunity for a future on the Northern Peninsula - when you look at it you see the two different levels of government.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. YOUNG: I know they are.
When I go out there, I see that governments, in certain circumstances, can work together. You see it in a number of cases when you go out there, and you have an offshore quota attached to certain agreements. When you go out there you see that, yes, there is a will, and when there is a will you can have some pinpoint things. We see that with the Labrador Shrimp Company. When you see a offshore quota out there, it encourages investment development. They know that, yes, there will be certain positive things come out of this agreement. Then you go out there and you think: Yes, we can do this in one, two or three circumstances, but, no, we cannot do that anymore. It does not make any sense and it is not the right and proper thing to do. It gives you kind of a sense of worth, I suppose, to realize that you are out there as a chosen one - or you are not chosen at all, and you will be left. In a large part of the Northern Peninsula, you are not a chosen one - to see that we need to have such agreements and such a resource to go out there.
If we had been in the times and what not, when we were out there, that there was a sea of plenty and that our communities were prospering, yes, I can see where you would go out there and another province in Canada would be able to take part in the great resource that we have, or some foreign countries to come in there to some degree. But to go out there and have foreign countries, as we do now, come in and take this resource for some benefit to some other part of this country, some other province, and then have that province come out there and have its share and to take it away as well, when we are doing so poorly, it really makes me wonder. When you live in the heart of the problem, you really have to wonder.
It is not as (inaudible) when you are living. I mean, you are there living and you are watching communities die. We have gone through a great struggle. We have seen where it has been, in many cases, like the federal programs that have gone out there and have determined that those communities will die, that it is the federal government who has the offshore quota. It is the federal government that has determined that uninsurable earnings is the only way that we can go out there and help those communities get over the hump and the crisis that they are in.
The solution they have, eventually is the very solution that will kill the community. The community will not survive because of this solution that it offers. It is a slow death. It is a death they have planned so that you are not aware of it today. It is not that you go out there and you shut down everything in one day. You shut it down piece by piece by piece. I think that is what we saw on the Northern Peninsula. So many people now are waking up and realizing that if we don't do something today there are going to be very few tomorrows. To see such a place go out of there, when we have gone out there and said, yes, unquestionably, that tourism is a great investment on the Northern Peninsula; because it is a great place. It has been compared to the West Coast which many people determine the most beautiful place they visited in the world. That is what the West Coast has been compared to many times. They are compared to the West Coast, compared to the Rockies. The comment is that our mountains are not peaked and as high, but they are very beautiful. I have heard so many times they would certainly give up the peaks to have the culture and the friendly people around them and the experience that they get in Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is hard to be out here. It is hard to be in a mood where you are entertaining guests from around the world and whatever, if you are living in very desperate times. I think that is where you would have seen the flavour of many places in rural Newfoundland, like the Northern Peninsula, is that we have lost our flavour because we have gone into very desperate times. The times that we have when we would go out there - and that we were sure of making a living. We thought maybe next year we would do as good as the year gone by. It no longer exists.
As we are out here we are wondering which and how the government is going to make a decision that is going to have a negative impact on our lives. We think this way because this has happened to us for the last ten years. Every year that we have come out - there have been things that have happened from government levels that have made our lives more desperate and more difficult, and the future more uncertain every year. These are the living conditions that we live in. When you get as far away from the centre as you do on the Northern Peninsula then it is most obvious there because you cannot interact and you cannot hope anything positive that would happen in a service centre, like Corner Brook, would ever flow far enough so that it would have any real benefit to a place like Black Duck Cove.
So, when you sit here you have no choice then but to go out, stand up and say I have to fight for my fish plant. If I do not fight for my fish plant, if I do not have a job there - I do not think that anything is going to go far enough so that we have a call centre or any other solution that we can find for a larger centre like, Corner Brook or Gander or wherever; we are just not.
Any of those IT solutions are not here because we do not have the infrastructure in place here yet, and we are not going to get the infrastructure because the argument is: You don't have a base economy; you don't have any people; you don't have any future. So that leads you back to the only thing that you can fight for, again, your fishery. If we do not fight for our fishery - those other things will not come in, such as the IT sector, as I have mentioned, or tourism, because nobody wants to go out and spend a lot of money.
We all know that getting to Newfoundland and Labrador is not a small decision. It is one of the most expensive places in this world to go because by the time you get to this Island, in many cases - you talk to tour operators, they can offer a tour to Australia from Northeastern United States to Newfoundland. It is in the same price range. We are a very high end product when the people that we attract and the services they want, and the environment they want to be in - they want the scenery but they also want the infrastructure in place as well. We cannot have that. So it is only an illusion that we have here, that tourism is going to be out there and have some positive impact on rural Newfoundland, it cannot. It will have a positive impact in places like Corner Brook and Rocky Harbour where we have centres to go - that we will have the services in place to go. But, as the fishery goes in rural parts that goes up the Northern Peninsula, it cannot exist because the infrastructure cannot be in place to provide the service because stand-alone tourism in places on the Northern Peninsula cannot work and it will not work, I assure you.
I think we have to go out there and look at it as a broad-based solution, and many parts of the puzzle have to go together. I think what has really happened to us in so many times is that we have just gone out there in isolation and made decisions that: Yes, tourism is good. Yes, the IT sector is good. Yes, the fishery when we go out there and we are putting it together - and we are not really joining the dots with any kind of a plan or solution. That is taking the people in. What has happened, I think, in so many cases, is that we have gone there and said: Well, yes, we can do this because this town will survive. This town has a future and this one does not. I think the great drawback to having that is that we have so many people working for a future that is there for them when the rest of the communities are there saying that there is no future.
The first thing we have to do is work against the policies of the day. The reason why the strategies have been put in place is that we have not had the wide-base support that we do need.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time is up.
MR. YOUNG: A few minutes to wrap up, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of minutes to conclude.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. YOUNG: I think the most thing that we have to do, if we are going to have a solution that we are going to put on the table, is that it is a solution that includes everybody; that it is not a solution that goes out there and just takes in winners and losers. It is clear cut who they are because we all have to work for the betterment of an area if it is going to survive. We cannot have one person saying: Well yes, this is a very good decision; and five people saying: No, it is not. I think that has happened in a lot of cases when we looked at how we were going to shape our fishery and our future when it comes to tourism and IT and what not. So that is what I think our solution must be, to have a more broad-based solution to where we are going in the future.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to conclude debate on the Budget and just the significance of what we are about to do. In the spring of every year government announces its Budget. We pass Interim Supply to allow government departments to operate in the interim, and supply to different departments to allow them to pay the cheques, pay the payroll, allow government services to continue; but essentially today, Mr. Speaker, is the end of the Budget Debate for yet another year. This is my ninth Budget, I say to my colleague for Cape St. Francis, since being elected. Participating in my ninth Budget and this is the largest, I say to the Government House Leader, $3.82 billion. So there is a lot to discuss, a lot to talk about on the appropriate ways and means of how government dollars should be spent, how they are spent, and the way in which we hope they should be spent. Questioning of government's priorities through Question Period, through the Estimate Committee process, and a variety of other measures.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting pieces of legislation that government has put forward this sitting is Bill 10, An Act Respecting the Citizens' Representative. Over the last week there has been much debate about it and some fanfare in the House in Question Period. There has been some suggestion by those people outside the Legislature that the Opposition have been untoward in holding up debate. Now any suggestion of that is simply, factually not true. Bill 10; the only speaker on Bill 10 from the Official Opposition side has been myself. We, Mr. Speaker, on this side are committed, on paper and otherwise, to the establishment of a Citizens' Representative in the Province. If we wanted to be -
MR. H. HODDER: It was our idea.
MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Waterford Valley is right. It is something that we had, I believe, in every policy manual that has been developed since 1989, if I am not mistaken; every one.
Now if we wanted to be obstructionist, as the Deputy Premier well knows, we could have been but we did not, and we were not. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I spoke for almost an hour in response to the Minister of Justice when he introduced the legislation.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. We have not been because there has been some suggestion that we have been obstructionist on this piece of legislation. Clearly, we have not been. If we wanted to be obstructionist the Member for Ferryland could have got up and used up his twenty minutes on Bill 10, he did not. If we wanted to be obstructionist the Member for Lewisporte could have come in and used up his twenty minutes in second reading, but he did not. The Member for Baie Verte, the hon. Mr. Paul Shelley, could have got up and spoke for twenty minutes, but he did not. The Member for St. John's East could have got up for twenty minutes to lodge our complaints on Bill 10, couldn't he? The Member for Cape St. Francis -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Nobody yet, I am going to get to them all. I am going to save the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board for last.
The Member for Cape St. Francis, chairperson of the public -
MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, do not get me started on you today because I will review your record all over again. Now if you want it laid out there again for all to see, not a problem. In other words get back to The Globe and Mail and keep your head down and you should be okay.
The Member for Cape St. Francis, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, could have used his twenty minutes on speaking on Bill 10; he did not, Mr. Speaker. According to the Deputy Premier, the best Public Accounts Committee in Canada, the very best and by extension -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: - there has to be. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it one way on Monday and another way on Sunday, I say to the Deputy Premier. By extension; that means the best Chairman of a Public Accounts Committee in Canada. That is exactly what it means!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The hon. Member for St. Barbe could have got up and spoke for twenty minutes on what he saw and what we felt were problems with Bill 10; he did not. The Member for The Straits &White Bay North could have got up, in an articulate way, and demonstrated the six different issues, points of contention that we had with the bill. Did he get up and obstruct? No, he did not. The Member for CBS, Bob French, he could have got up and talked about the problems with Bill 10. In fact, he did not do it either. The Member for Windsor-Springdale, did he get up and try to obstruct? No, he did not. How about the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne? He did not. In a very responsible way, as our critic for Education, he spoke to the problems contained in the bill that the minister has before the Table. I believe you provided some amendments.
MR. HEDDERSON: Two of them.
MR. E. BYRNE: Two amendments in line with the Minister of Education. I will get back to her comments in a moment. Did he get up? No, Mr. Speaker, he did not. The Member for St. John's South, he tried to get up, we had to hold him back. He wanted to but he agreed -
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, we did, basically. In a parliamentary, political sense, that is exactly what we had to do to him, I say to the Deputy Premier.
Did the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's get up and try to be obstructionist, to use up his time, to waste the time of this Legislature, or to waste the time of the House and, in doing so, waste the time of the people of the Province? No, Mr. Speaker, he did not.
What about the Member for Waterford Valley? This is the same member who provided me with some valuable advice about a year-and-a-half ago. In debate one day, he said: Ed, why say in 200 words what it can take you 10,000 to 15,000 to say? Absolutely, Mr. Speaker! Now, if anybody, I say to you, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: This is very important.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I am saving you for last. Hang on, I will get to you. I am not going to leave the Minister of Finance out. I am not going to leave her out.
MR. TULK: I have never accused anybody in my life in this House (inaudible) for you to say that he said - I am not up on a point of order - told you to shorten your speech?
MR. E. BYRNE: No, you misinterpreted. I said he provided me with some valuable advice. He said: Ed, when we are up in debate why say in 200 words what it could take 15,000 to 20,000 to say? I agree with him.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Completely opposite.
Now, did he get up and obstruct? No, he did not. He could have done it. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Waterford Valley is quite capable. He has demonstrated that in the people's interests that when we have needed to on particular pieces of legislation - the like of the Shops' Closing Act. Do you recall that?
MR. H. HODDER: Maybe later on today (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Maybe later on today - like the Shops' Closing act, like on hydro, like on the Committee for Children's Interests. Where it is valid and it must be done, he has lead the way.
Did the eloquent Member for Bonavista South stand up and obstruct on Bill 10? No, he did not. What about my colleague for St. John's West? Was she part of some perceived filibuster?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.
MR. E. BYRNE: What we have done on a legislative agenda - if anyone ever accused us of being filibusters on legislation in this sitting, well they have not seen one. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we did was the responsible thing. Through myself, in the capacity that I am in right now as Leader of the Opposition, we lodged our complaints to Bill 2 - almost by fifty-five or fifty-eight minutes dealing with -
MR. SULLIVAN: And there was eight minutes in committee they never even put (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I am going to get to that in a second, exactly.
We agreed, in principle, with the establishment or the reintroduction of a Citizens' Representative. So what we did, and what we decided as a group to do, the most responsible thing: Let's lodge our complaints on second reading. Let's get on the record. Let's ask some tough questions of government dealing with Bill 10. Let's wait until we get to the committee stage where we can introduce some amendments. That is the responsible thing to do, but we went even further on this piece of legislation. Nobody has spoken in Committee. To date there have been two speakers on this piece of legislation: the Minister of Justice, in his role as endorsing the bill and the bill that comes under his department, and myself. There are forty-seven people in the House who are eligible to debate any piece of legislation, at any time, and forty-five of them have not. There have only been two. No one, Mr. Speaker, could accuse this Official Opposition as being obstructionist on this piece of legislation or any other. I will get to the others in a moment.
What occurred last Thursday? We had six major problems with the legislation being put forward by government. Did we wait to introduce those amendments when Committee was called? No, we did again the responsible thing. We did not want to go to legislative committee. We felt that there was an opportunity, a window of opportunity, to resolve these outstanding issues. So, what we did was put together the six amendments that we wanted the government to have a look at. Not only did we put together the amendments in a very non-partisan and fair-minded way; we provided, on each amendment, the explanatory notes that said to government: Here is why we feel these amendments will make the act stronger. Here is why we feel these amendments will bring further accountability not just to government but, most importantly, to the House of Assembly. Here is why we feel strongly about the following amendments.
To his credit, the Minister of Justice took those amendments, looked at them seriously, reviewed the implications of what we had suggested, and I can proudly say today that there is consensus on four of those amendments. Would that be correct in saying? Four of the six amendments that we have put forward, there is consensus on.
One of the amendments dealt with the Freedom of Information Act, and why the exclusionary provision is there for no decisions to be reviewed by appeals from the Freedom of Information. His explanation has been this: that he fully expects, and anticipates, when the sitting of the Legislature reopens in the fall, that there will be sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act. He has made a commitment, and I appreciate the commitment he has made, that the reason that the exclusionary provision is there is that government fully intends to put in place a Freedom of Information Commissioner. In other words, right now, as the present act exists, if government or a minister, on a Freedom of Information request, denies the information, the only step that anybody - whether it is the Official Opposition or a private citizen - goes to is the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.
That left ourselves, on this side of the House, with a decision to make. Do we accept the minister at his word, that there will be a Freedom of Information Commissioner put in place who will be able to review, independently, all requests that have been denied under the Freedom of Information? We have no reason - we have put forward and we have decided as a group - not to accept the minister at his word; but we do, however, reserve the right and we reserve putting any judgement on it until we see the legislation before us this fall. That is exactly what we did on the Ombudsman, or the Citizens' Representative Act.
The other issue, the last outstanding issue, deals with clause 18 and clause 31, but I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that we, between now and tomorrow, when we get to debate this legislation, may be able to arrive at some consensus on that last amendment. If we do, we can say in a very non-partisan, very forthright way, that this legislation was debated in the House in an appropriate manner, there was nobody obstructing the legislation, the Opposition had serious problems with certain aspects of the legislation, appropriately we put forward the amendments in time for careful and due consideration, and based upon that careful and due consideration government and the Opposition have reached consensus and an agreement on how the act should be amended to make it stronger and more accountable.
Mr. Speaker, how could anybody, either inside this Legislature or outside this Legislature, accuse the Opposition of being obstructionist? We could be debating this issue, and only this issue, into next week, let alone this week, if we wanted to. If we really wanted to be obstructionists, I say to my colleagues, we could debate it to such an extent that we may even force government to think about invoking motions of closure. That is not something new to this government, closure motions. None whatsoever. They have done it many, many, many times before. Haven't you, I say to the Deputy Premier? Many times, closure motions.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me tell you how necessary it really is. Back to the accusation that has been leveled against us, back on the obstructionist agenda. Just for the record, I want to review it so everyone is clear on how accommodating -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No. Where we have made a commitment - I remind my colleagues that during the Throne Speech, we made a commitment.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I am talking about the Budget. What is the problem?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: It is flourescent madness day, isn't it?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now.
Aren't you expending public dollars on the Citizens' Representative? Yes. Does that involve public money? Yes. Does the money come from the Budget? Yes. Are we debating the Budget? Yes. Therefore, we can talk about anything we want related to public dollars, Minister. You know that.
Now, back to closure motion.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I will go to closure motions in a second. No, I will do it now. If we wanted to be obstructionist, we could have forced government to introduce closure on this and many other bills, but we did not.
From 1949 to 1989, closure motions, which essentially limit debate and stop debate, were only introduced five times.
MR. SULLIVAN: Since when?
MR. E. BYRNE: From 1949 to 1989, forty years.
MR. SULLIVAN: Five times in forty years.
MR. E. BYRNE: You are right. Five times in forty years. In other words, once every eight years. Now, listen to this. From 1989 to 1996, closure was introduced twenty-three times. Nineteen of those twenty-three times were under the Wells Administration from 1989 to 1995. Four of those twenty-three times were under the Tobin Administration.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. That was in December, in the fall.
MR. E. BYRNE: That was in 1996. Unbelievable. Before Wells, five times in forty years, nineteen times in six years, four times in one year with Tobin. Under the Wells Administration, closure motion was introduced nineteen times in six years. When the Deputy Premier - we thought that the House Leader, under the Administration of Clyde Wells, in the latter years was bad. Then we got to 1996 and the House Leader, under Tobin, introduced closure four times in one year. Can you imagine how many times closure would be introduced if he was still the House Leader, I ask the hon. members? Could you imagine? One can only imagine. That is left for speculation and conjecture.
AN HON. MEMBER: Twice in one night.
MR. E. BYRNE: That is exactly right, twice in one night.
MR. SULLIVAN: Four times in one year.
MR. E. BYRNE: Four times in one year. From 1979 to 1988: once in 1979, three times in 1984, once in 1988. You used it twice in one night.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: It is a fact, twice in one night.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Twenty-eight times.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Four times, I told him, in one year.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, like I said, I can just imagine. We all can imagine, if you were still the House Leader, how many more times you would be introducing it.
MR. SULLIVAN: That was in less than two weeks.
MR. E. BYRNE: Less than two weeks.
MR. SULLIVAN: In December,1996.
MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly right.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I have it here. I will get it for you. Unreal.
In 1990, four times; 1991, seven times; 1992, one time; 1994, four times; 1995, three times. You were here then.
MR. TULK: I was here but I (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No, you were in the nosebleed section. That is right, you were up in the nosebleed section. That is right.
In 1996, four times, detailed as follows. Listen to this. We all remember July 25, closure motion on the Kodak Bill.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No, where is it? Where is that?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: What happened to Kodak? What happened to that important public policy piece of legislation that we were all called back in the latter part of July to debate? What happened to that?
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: On December 17, the motion was introduced on the HST bill, second reading. Enough of that, he said. The old scrooge, the hobnailed boots came out that night. Do you remember that? The old Ed Roberts hobnailed boots. Boy, he put them on that night. Notice on December 17 on the HST bill in Committee, twice in one night. Then, notice on December 17 on the Schools Act. That is the type of accountability that this group of individuals over there are - the record speaks for itself. That crowd over there!
During the Throne Speech, Mr .Speaker, this sitting of the House, visitors in on the floor of the House of Assembly, in the galleries, Supreme Court Judges, Justices present. Your friend was not here, though. Your good old buddy was not here for the Throne Speech.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Your former, former boss.
MR. TULK: Chief Justice (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. He could not make it that time.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I understand that.
We made a commitment at that time, Mr. Speaker, that we would not be obstructionist for the sake of being so, that where we agreed with legislation, we would agree with it, state why we are agreeing with it and then facilitate the passage of such legislation. Now, for anybody to suggest -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, we are, Sir. This is it.
For anyone to suggest, either inside this House or outside, that we have been obstructionist in this sitting, let me review the facts.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?
MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I am going to get to that.
Let me review the facts. Bill 1 -
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) speaks for both of us.
MR. E. BYRNE: There you go, Mr .Speaker. You have it. We have heard it here. He finally admitted it. He said: My member speaks for both of us, and I am his member. That is why, during the last election, there was a sign on the Government House Leader's - he was Government House Leader at the time, Deputy Premier - that is why there was a sign to re-elect Ed Byrne on his lawn in the Goulds, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: There was. That is a fact. I have the picture to prove it, and I was not even here.
MR. TULK: Have you?
MR. E. BYRNE: I do.
MR. TULK: Give it to me.
MR. E. BYRNE: I will. I wasn't even here, Mr. Speaker. I was in Clarenville.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, no. I can give you a record of the incoming call that we took from your residence requesting a lawn sign, and I can give you a record of when we put it there. What happened to it eight days after that, I do not know. Some Liberal tore it down. That is all I can imagine.
Mr .Speaker, that is true, very true.
MR. SULLIVAN: But he wasn't home now, was he?
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, he must have been out facilitating his re-entrance into this Legislature like the rest of us. I was not there. I only wish I had been, because I could provide him with more detailed information, but I was in Port aux Basques and Corner Brook, and Clarenville and Labrador City. I was all over.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely. Now your neighbor, who is also the Liberal candidate, was not too happy.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, just lives about four doors down the street, right down from you. A Liberal candidate of record in the District of Kilbride was not too happy.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, but just down from you.
Anyway, to suggest that we have been obstructionist, Mr. Speaker, here is the record: On Bill 1, this sitting, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, second reading, Mr. Sullivan was the only speaker. There were no speakers in Committee. It doesn't sound like an obstructionist Opposition to me.
Petroleum Products, second reading: Important issue, I say to members opposite, important public issue. This was on second reading. The Member for St. John's East, the critic, spoke, the Member for Conception Bay South spoke, the Member for Bonavista South spoke, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne spoke, the Member for Windsor-Springdale spoke, the Member for Waterford Valley spoke, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's spoke, I spoke as Leader of the Opposition, and the Member for St. John's West spoke.
Bill 5, Prepaid Funeral Services: The critic, the Member for St. John's South, the only person to speak.. Committee: We went through committee and there were no speakers because we agreed with the bill.
MR. T. OSBORNE: For the record, I spoke for about one minute.
MR. E. BYRNE: There you go, for about one minute to two minutes. That was it. It doesn't sound like an obstructionist Opposition to me.
Income Tax, Bill 6, second reading: Our critic spoke, the Member for Ferryland.
Committee on May 10: Were there any speakers on committee? No, there were not. None. It doesn't sound, Mr. Speaker, like a group of individuals in the House trying to hold up the people's business for the sake of doing it; not whatsoever.
Second reading on Bill 7, Municipal Elections: The Member for Conception Bay South, who is the critic for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the only person that we put up to speak on that bill. He did an excellent job. Sorry, there was one other, the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. SULLIVAN: He spoke for about a minute.
MR. E. BYRNE: That is right. He spoke for a few minutes, but in no way, Mr. Speaker, could he be accused of being obstructionist.
Bill 8, The Schools Act. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a controversial piece of legislation, but second reading took place on the 14th of May.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: The Schools Act, Bill 8. The critic spoke, Mr. Hedderson for Harbour Main- Whitbourne, myself and Mr. Hodder stood briefly but more to respond -
MR. SULLIVAN: It was only on points. It was not on the bill.
MR. E. BYRNE: It was only on points. It was not on the bill. So, our critic -
MR. H. HODDER: About a minute, my shortest speech ever.
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. Our critic, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne provided, for this floor and to the government, the official position of the Official Opposition.
Bill 9, Committee: A piece of legislation that was brought before the House last fall, a hangover from the former administration. The Minister of Justice struck a Select Committee of the House agreed to by this side. Two members on it, the Member for Ferryland and the Member for St. John's East who did an excellent job on the Select Committee on Tobacco Related Health Care Costs Recovery. Now, on second reading: The only person that spoke in second reading was the Opposition House Leader to that bill, and the vice-chair of that committee.
MR. SULLIVAN: We are only going to have one speaker in Committee now when it comes up again.
MR. E. BYRNE: And we are only going to have one speaker in Committee.
Now, could we be accused by any member opposite, or anybody else, that we have been obstructionist? Not likely.
Bill 10.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?
MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, there has been some suggestion that there have been. I am setting the record straight.
Bill 10: I have already done that. I am not suggesting anyone opposite. I never said anybody.
Bill 11, Chiropractor, second reading on May 8.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: The Deputy Premier, my constituent, coming to my aid yet again; yet again.
MR. TAYLOR: I would say he will be your campaign manager.
MR. E. BYRNE: Guaranteed. There is going to be an endorsement in the first brochure, a big picture of the Deputy Premier
MR. TAYLOR: I would say he would be sign manager.
MR. E. BYRNE: He is not good at calling them, is he? My colleague for The Straits & White Bay North makes an excellent point. He said that he could be the campaign manager for me in the next election, the Deputy Premier, or sign manager to which I replied, yes, because his timing is off in calling by-elections.
AN HON. MEMBER: It could have been worse.
MR. E. BYRNE: It could have been worse, you could have called four. It could be worse, you could be in charge of calling the two that we presently have to call. There is no doubt about it.
On bill 11, Mr. Speaker, the Chiropractors Act, the second reading occurred on May 8. There was one speaker, the Member for Waterford Valley. In Committee, two days later -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: That was cruel and unusual punishment, was it?
AN HON. MEMBER: That was about four minutes.
MR. E. BYRNE: Two days later, in Committee, Mr. Speaker, there were no speakers because we agreed with the bill. As the member points out, it was only four or five minutes.
Bill 12, Medical Care Insurance, the second reading on May 8: The critic, the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, spoke. He was the only speaker. Then, in Committee, two days later, on May 10, no speakers. None! How could we be accused of not facilitating and living up to our commitment, that where we agree with government on legislation we will move forward and endorse it immediately?
Mr. Speaker, I am not even finished yet. If we can reach consensus on Bill 10, we will have the speakers in Committee over with, I would say, in less than ten minutes. That is my advise to government, that if we can reach consensus on the last point of one of the amendments put forward on Bill 10, I would say the debate in Committee will not go beyond ten minutes. The same two people who spoke in second reading, that being the Minister of Justice, who sponsors the bill, and myself, will probably be the only two in Committee.
AN HON. MEMBER: Unless.
MR. E. BYRNE: That depends, yes. We are almost there, I say to my colleague. We are almost there.
Bill 13, the Liquor Corporation, second reading: The only person who spoke was the Member for Ferryland, the critic for Treasury Board and Finance. Three days later, in Committee, no speakers. We facilitated the passage of that in second reading.
Bill 15, the Aquaculture Act, second reading, May 7: The only speaker, once again, the Member for Ferryland. Three days later on May 10, when Committee was called, were there any speakers? No.
Now, I could go on, but I am not. I think I have made my point. At least I hope I have made my point, that we have not -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, if you want me to.
Mr. Speaker, I was just about to sit down, but I did make a commitment to the President of Treasury Board. I did. I am sorry, I almost forgot.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Now, minister, calm down. Don't say it, not a word. I do not want to get into your history again. I did make a commitment and I apologize that I did not live up to it. Let me clear it up.
Bill 1: Did the Minister of Finance speak? No. Bill 4, Petroleum Products: Did the Minister of Finance speak? No. Bill 5, on Prepaid Funeral Services: Did the Minister of Finance speak on bill 5?
AN HON. MEMBER: No, she didn't.
MR. E. BYRNE: No, she did not.
Bill 6: She spoke on bill 6.
MR. SULLIVAN: She did, the Income Tax Act.
MR. E. BYRNE: No, she did not.
MR. SULLIVAN: No. She spoke before it was called, but the Government House Leader introduced it, I think.
MR. E. BYRNE: Right. That is exactly right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: I am only reviewing the -
MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, on a point of order.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, exactly my point of order. You virtually made it for me, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is only repetitious. If I recall correctly, ten minutes ago, I heard him say everything that he is currently about to say. I would suggest, I would ask him, I would implore him, in the interest of time and in the interest of us keeping our sanity and him saving his breath, him saving his voice, that he reconsider the long list, the (inaudible) list, of speakers who spoke on the various bills. I would ask him to consider all of these things before he gets too deeply into his repetitious and rhetorical desecration on that particular point.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: The only member I see who is holding up government's own agenda is a member of the Cabinet himself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: On Bill 8, there were three speakers. There would have only been one, had he not gotten up and gone on with such nonsense and foolishness, Mr. Speaker; a point of privilege that was later ruled no point of privilege, that was a disagreement between two hon. members. Go back to the Globe and Mail, keep your head down, and I could be out of here in three minutes. It is your choice. Six minutes, sorry. Four-thirty.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) how he jumped up.
MR. E. BYRNE: That is what I was just talking about. The only person obstructing the work of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Mines and Energy. Now, how is it -
AN HON. MEMBER: I would call that scurrilous behaviour.
MR. E. BYRNE: Scurrilous behavior, that is right. Scurrilous, is it?
MR. SULLIVAN: S-c-u-r-r-i-l-o-u-s. Scurrilous, he said.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we know what the Minister of Finance did.
Mr. Speaker, I have about five minutes left, and I want to say to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture: Last week an unprecedented sort of situation occurred in Newfoundland politics, when the Member for Port de Grave, in such a ceremonious fashion, passed over the recipe pickle book to you. Now, I had a request yesterday -
MR. J. BYRNE: You will never see it again, boy.
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I am not sure. That is why I am about to make the request. I had a request yesterday from a former Minister of Agriculture to see if we could get that book, to see if the Minister of Agriculture who I know will not be using it - he is not going to be hauling it out like the former member did. He is not going to be doing that.
Mr. Speaker, there is a request made by a former minister to me, to bring to the attention of the current Minister of Agriculture: What does he intend to do with that book? Is it signed, first of all? Is that signed?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, now. I never said what former minister.
I have lived up to yet another, Mr. Speaker, one more constituent call that I have addressed, like all others.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are narrowing it down now as to who it might me.
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, listen, he lives in my district, Deputy Premier.
So, the request has been made. I would wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the current Minister of Agriculture would seriously consider what he is going to do with that book that -
MR. SULLIVAN: He is going to have a going away party this summer, before he moves out.
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, absolutely.
If the current minister could - and he understands who the request is coming from. He understands the significance of the request, and he understands why that person would want to have that book.
AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't say former colleague on top of all that, would you?
MR. E. BYRNE: No, I wouldn't.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No, there is more, but the significance of that one is the fact that it belonged to one John Efford. I think that is the significance.
AN HON. MEMBER: And he passed it on.
MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly. Anyway, I will leave that request with you. You can think about it, you can analyze it. If you can let us know before Saturday, I would certainly appreciate it.
AN HON. MEMBER: That book was only in safekeeping. You know, it could be back (inaudible) -
MR. E. BYRNE: That is true. Never say never. It is a small town. You can't go anywhere.
Mr. Speaker, it is now four twenty-eight. I will sit down and we will conclude the debate on the Budget. But I want to be clear, and I think I have made the point clearly on behalf of all of us, that nobody in this Legislature, during this sitting, could accuse this group of fine outstanding and upstanding individuals of being obstructionists, because we certainly have not been.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to approve, in general, the budgetary policies of the government?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
All those against, ‘nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: Carried.
AN HON. MEMBER: Division.
MR. SPEAKER: Division.
Division
MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Joyce; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Labor; the hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Environment; Mr. Mercer; Ms. Jones; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Ross Wiseman.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Harvey Hodder; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Manning; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Hunter; Mr. French; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Young; Mr. Collins.
Mr. Speaker, twenty-two ayes and fifteen nays.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have received a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: All rise.
To the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board:
I, the Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2002. By way of further supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.
Sgd.:___________________________
Clyde K. Wells, Administrator.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message be referred to the Committee of Whole on Supply.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!
"An Act An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 3)
Resolution
"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2002 the sum of $2,165,841,600."
On motion, resolution carried
On motion, clauses 1 through 4, carried
Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, without amendment, carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the total contained in the Estimates in the amount of $3, 392,287,700 for the 2001-2002 fiscal year be carried and I further move that the Committee report that the Committee has adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto and the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matter to them referred, and have directed me to report that they have passed the amount of $3,392,287,700 contained in the Estimates of Supply for the 2001-2002 fiscal year and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that Bill 3 be introduced to give effect to same.
On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.
On motion, resolution read a first and second time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the main Supply Bill be now read a first time.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Sector," carried. (Bill 3)
On motion, Bill 3 read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I assume that we have all of that finished. We now go to Order 16, Bill 19, An Act to Amend the Shops' Closing Act.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!
Order 16, Bill 19.
Clause 1.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on Bill 19, An Act to Amend The Shops' Closing Act.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, that is a prime example. I have said here in this House of Assembly many, many times in the past about legislation that is rushed through this House of Assembly. A few years ago, in 1998 I believe, we were sitting here probably around the clock around Christmastime and the government was adamant that they were going to have that piece of legislation by Christmas.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. As a matter of fact, that is one night I remember distinctly when I got pretty upset with the Government House Leader of the day.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I say! Now, you would not want me to go there, I say to the Deputy Premier. That was one night that there were a number of pieces of legislation going through third reading and there was one which happened to be included that was not there before, all of a sudden. I got up on a point of order, Mr. Chairman -
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: That was 1998. That was Christmas of 1998. I will not go there, Mr Chairman. I will not go there.
Anyway, this legislation was being forced through the House of Assembly. We said, at the time, that it was being rushed. Boys, what is this?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. J. BYRNE: Let me tell you something. Let me say something first. The Opposition is on that side of the House and I obviously have enemies on this side of the House.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is right.
MR. TULK: Keep in mind, there are thirty-two over here against you (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly, right on.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, this piece of legislation; again, we see amendments now coming to legislation that went through this House of Assembly in 1998. The government that was there, at the time, was forcing it through; brought in closure. We pointed out certain deficiencies at that time. One of the deficiencies was that July 1 would come on a Sunday every seventh year, but we were ignored. Now we are bringing in legislation to amend that. July 1 this year falls on a Sunday. They want to be able to give the people, July 1, a holiday. Now, if they had listened to us back three years ago, three-and-a-half years ago now, they would have -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Just because, Mr. Chairman, we have fewer numbers on this side of the House does not mean we are wrong all the time. It usually means we are right all the time.
Since 1998 we seen our numbers come up from nine and fourteen to sixteen, and in the very near future, when the Premier has the nerve to call a couple of by-elections, we could very well see that number raised to eighteen in this House of Assembly. Then we will have eighteen Tories; two NDP are here. So twenty on this side of the House versus twenty-seven on that side of the House. It could very well happen. Now, if you take the Speaker out of that, you have twenty - one Speaker - six. Mr. Chairman, what is going to happen in the very near future? I predict we could very well have a full-fledged election by the fall. Then there are going to be a certain few on that side of the House - may not be on that side of the House or this side of the House. They could be very well outside altogether. That is what could very well happen in the very near future. If I was sitting on that side of the House at this point in time, sitting in those chairs, I would be wondering, what is my best move? I am sure that is what is going through their minds. I know what mine would be.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you're not coming over.
MR. J. BYRNE: I do not think you have any fear of that. Let me tell you a story, Mr. Chairman, about coming over there. Back in 1996 when we had the election and we had, I think, nine members on this side of the House at that time. What happened? The former, former Premier had someone contact every member on this side of the House who was sitting at the time, except one. There was only one they would not ask to run Liberal. Why was that? Because they knew it was no sense because it is not going to happen, that I would ever be running Liberal, I can tell you that right now or crossing to that side of the House. It is not going to happen!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Now, on the back there we have Statler and Waldorf. Do you know who they are? Do you know who they are, Statler and Waldorf? You don't, do you? Ask the Chair, they will tell you. Statler and Waldorf.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: That is who you are, and you are just like them too, by the way. I will ask someone who is in the know, with respect to that. I will ask the Clerk here at the Table. She will be able to tell you who Statler and Waldorf are.
In the meantime -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I can tell you. You don't have a clue, do you?
MR. SWEENEY: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: It would not take much to know more than you, I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, not a lot; would it?
Mr. Chairman, back to the point. This piece of legislation, we do not need to spend a lot of time on it. As I said, if the government had listened to us in 1998 we would not be spending time on this now, in this House of Assembly.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: What a waste of time and effort, Mr. Chairman, in this House of Assembly, when you have members on that side of the House trying to interrupt.
Commonsense, I was saying here, with respect to this piece, Bill 19.
MR. SULLIVAN: For a bill that was not even necessary.
MR. J. BYRNE: It was not necessary. If they had listened to us, all that would have been required was one small amendment, at that time, and we would not have been dealing with this here now, going through first reading, second reading, Committee, third reading -
MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Something you would (inaudible), I would say to the Member for Torngat.
Mr. Chairman, this bill will allow shop workers, people working in stores like the Wal-Marts, the Woolcos, and whatever, around the City of St. John's, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to have a holiday on July 1, this year. As I said, there was no need to have this done if they had listened to us three years ago.
Before I go too much further I just want to say that when it comes to shopping in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - what we often see are these flyers in the Telegram, and I am sick of them, to be honest with you. You get hundreds of flyers in the run of a year. It must cost them a fortune in advertising.
MR. SULLIVAN: Just as much as (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Now, that is the point I was going to make. They also take out full-page ads. We have a full-page ad here: Government's work plan of action. This was something -
MR. SULLIVAN: Did they check off Child Advocate?
MR. J. BYRNE: On the Child Advocate, I am not sure. Oh yes, they established a Child Advocate. It is checked off. It says: We have already completed or begun work to. Yes, a lot of work to write a few words on a piece of paper.
Thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, Mr. Chair, with respect to this ad. Liberal propaganda paid for by the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The St. John's Hospital Corporation has been requested, or told, or demanded by this government to cut $10 million from their budget, and we see the like of this going on in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is shameful!
I am going to sit down now and let some -
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I think I will continue on a little bit further now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is just encouraging me to sit down.
Is the Deputy Premier here in the House now? Who is that there? It is strange that we are talking about $10 million from the St. John's Health Care Corporation to be cut and we have the Deputy Premier of the Province, who is instrumental in this relocation, looking for $10 million to relocate people across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is funny, isn't it? Don't you find that a bit peculiar? That is not the real figure, it is more like $20 million.
MR. SULLIVAN: There are longer waiting lists, I can tell you that.
MR. J. BYRNE: There are longer waiting lists, and they are looking for $10 million. It is shameful!
Mr. Chairman, with that I am going to sit down and maybe someone on that side -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: Wait now, he is not down yet.
MR. SHELLEY: They are encouraging you to stay up.
MR. J. BYRNE: I know.
Mr. Chair, with that I will sit down and let someone else have a few words.
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act." (Bill 19)
On motion, clause 1 carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, Order 17, Bill 8.
CHAIR: Order 17, Bill 8.
Clause 1.
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: I just rise today, Mr. Chairman, to look at the amendments to Bill 8. Clause 1 indicates that there is a transitional section that is no longer required in the act. I just stand to indicate that this amendment should be removed from the act; that the transitional section is no longer applicable. We have no difficulty, or at least I have no difficultly with that particular amendment. The amendments to follow, I will be rising to speak on as well, but the transitional section is one that I have no difficulty with.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today to offer an amendment to clause 2. I move the following amendment to Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997:
That clause 2 be amended at paragraph (a) by deleting the words and commas "unless the annual fiscal budget for that fiscal year has first been approved, in writing, by the minister" and substituting therefor the words "unless the minister has first certified in writing that the annual fiscal budget for that fiscal year complies with this Act".
Do I need a seconder for that?
CHAIR: Can we have a copy of that, please?
MR. HEDDERSON: Okay.
CHAIR: The amendment appears to be in order.
MR. HEDDERSON: I will speak then to the amendment.
CHAIR: Yes.
Copies are now being made and will be distributed shortly.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I am rising today with great concerns about the amendment, clause 2, regarding the approval being required with regard to the Budget from the school boards by the minister.
When we look at this particular amendment that has coming through in Bill 8, the big question here is: What would be the intent of bringing forth this particular amendment to Bill 8? It is my contention that the intent exceeds what the provisions of the Schools Act have set out. If the intent of the minister in bringing forth this amendment is to bring the budgetary process in line with the Schools Act, then the amendment that I put forth would take care of that. As far as I am concerned, the act adequately covers the budgetary process which now goes on with regard to school boards. The school boards do their preparation for the Budget. They know what they have to work with because they have pre-consultation with the minister, with the Department of Education. They know what funds are available and then the onus is on them to put forth a budget that stays within those particular parameters or guidelines as are set out in dollars and cents, or where the money is going to be spent or whatever.
The boards set priorities and it is important that in setting these priorities that they are not second guessed when this budget process is done regarding how they should be spending their money with regard to the priorities of any particular school district. The boards have an assistant director of finance who is specifically hired, I say to the Chair, to put their finances and budgetary projections in order. Again the Schools Act clearly states what can and cannot be done regarding the budgetary process and the end result. So, it is the intent that we have to look at here, and the intent is, by the amendment that has been brought forth in Bill 8, to go further than just written approval. It has gone further than that, whereby when it goes back to the department, it goes back to the minister, then the priorities, the work that has gone into the budget could be literally wiped out. Changes could be made. The minister has within his or her power the ability to make changes, to force changes, to change the direction that the school board may be going in with regard to the upcoming school year, in regard to priorities, in regard to how they are going to best allocate the funding that the Department of Education has set out for that.
Again, if the intent is to stick with what is already in the Schools Act, I say to you, Mr. Chair, that the amendment I have put forth clearly states that the minister will certify the budget according to the act. Now, you can't get much better than that, I would say, Mr. Chair, because it is very, very important that the Schools Act - and I am sure there was a lot of work put into the Schools Act in making sure that especially the public funds were going to be taken care of. So, the act clearly, clearly takes care of that part of it.
We have to look at the intent of the amendment to the Schools Act, which is Bill 8, and the intent is to go beyond the Schools Act, to again give the minister powers to go beyond what is written in the Schools Act and to go on and once again take a little bit, not a great deal but a significant amount of autonomy from the school boards as they put together the budget for any particular year.
Again, I am hoping that this amendment will be accepted, because this amendment that I have put forth clearly states that the act will be complied with. Now, the minister stated, here in the House and outside the House, that the only intent she has is to make sure that boards comply with the act. This is clearly stated here in the amendment that I am putting forth with regard to clause 2, that it forces the situation to such an extent that the minister will not sign off on any budget unless that budget complies with what is there in the act itself. Now, if the amendment is not accepted, it just goes to show, Mr. Chair, that the intent then for this amendment to the Schools Act, this Bill 8, is to empower the minister more and to take away from the school boards the autonomy to have control of the priorities and whatever else goes into putting the budget together.
Again, it is an amendment that I feel very strongly goes back to the intent in the act. The act does not need to be changed. It is there in black and white, if I could say it in those terms, that the school boards have to be responsible with regard to budget. They have to follow the accounting that is set down by the Auditor General. They have to set parameters that are within the guidelines that are sent out from the Department of Education. It is a process of consultation, of coming together, and there is no need to go beyond the act in order to make sure that the budget is a proper one, according to the act.
So, this change in subsection 65(3) of the act, " A board shall not, in a fiscal year, incur, contract for or become liable for an expenditure or debt..." - that is there - unless the minister has first certified in witting that the annual fiscal budget of that fiscal year complies with this act.
The (b) section states, "that is more than the estimated expenditures or debt set out in its annual budget or substantially changes the manner in which an expenditure will be made, except with the prior written approval of the minister."
The amendment that I have put forward, Mr. Chair, plus the act itself, adequately covers the intent which was the minister's intent, to make sure that boards comply with the Schools Act. That is done, and to go any further than that would be for another intent.
So, on those words, I put it before the House and certainly hope that the members of the House will see that this amendment simply reiterates, simply makes sure, that the Schools Act is going to be enforced.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: To speak to the amendment: on the advice of our departmental solicitor, we put the amendment to them and what has been suggested to us is that to go down this path would in fact be just as well as if we did not introduce any amendments whatsoever. Having said that, I think the point here is that we are not looking for control. We obviously need to take the advice of our departmental solicitor. She has looked very closely at the amendment and has advised that what we are putting forward in the way of an amendment to Bill 8 is necessary in order to respond to the criticism of the Auditor General, but as well to ensure again that there is approval -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS FOOTE: The issue here for us is to make sure, Mr. Chair, that we work collaboratively with the school boards, which is what we intend to do. Right now, under the legislation, the only alternative available to the minister when the boards do not comply or when there is not approval in terms of how the budget is being expended is to dismiss the board and/or withhold monies, which we are not interested in doing either. We want to work on a collaborative approach not a punitive basis, Mr. Chair. So, what we are suggesting here is that we work together with the boards; that in fact the minister see up front the budget and not after the fact - it will be too late after the fact - but to see in fact how the board is proposing to spend their funding to ensure again that we are seeing a responsible expenditure of $500 million of taxpayers' money.
We have been advised by the solicitor for the department that to go forward with the amendment as put forward by the Opposition would not in fact ensure what we need to accomplish in response to the criticism of the Auditor General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to clause 2 of Bill 8?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: In my opinion, the nays have it.
On motion, amendment defeated.
On motion, clause 2 carried, without amendment.
CHAIR: Clause 3.
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Clause 3.(1) and (2), I assume, we will do together?
CHAIR: Yes.
MR. HEDDERSON: I will speak to the amendment.
CHAIR: Has the amendment to clause 3 been circulated?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
CHAIR: Very well, proceed.
MR. HEDDERSON: I would like to move an amendment, if I could.
To move the following amendment to Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997:
That subclause 3(2) be amended by deleting the words and commas "without the prior written approval of that contract by the minister and a contract of employment entered into without that approval shall be void" and substituting therefor the words "unless the minister has certified in writing that the contract complies with this Act and a contract of employment entered into without that certification shall be void."
Seconded by:
AN HON. MEMBER: I will second it.
CHAIR: The motion is in order.
You may proceed.
MR. HEDDERSON: I will speak, Mr. Chair, to the amendment.
This particular amendment to the Schools Act, as put forth by the minister, is certainly a very contentious one, because, as the minister explained, there is some sort of a compromise regarding Recommendation 65 of the William-Sparkes report. It is there to take away from the school boards a certain amount of autonomy in their selection, in their hiring, and in the contract in which they enter regarding the directors and the assistant directors.
The amendment that I put forth clearly indicates that the contracts that we are talking about will not be entered into unless they comply with the act. The Schools Act of 1997 is put forth in such a way as to make sure that these contracts are done in a proper manner.
There was problems with regard to transition back in 1996-1997 and into 1998.
AN HON. MEMBER: There were problems.
MR. HEDDERSON: Major problems, yes there were problems.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not was.
MR. HEDDERSON: No, there were problems. Thank you, Minister. I am glad you are correcting my language arts. Language arts is integrated across everything, so I would ask that you also, with the other critics, make sure that you correct them as well.
To get back to the amendment, Mr. Chair, it is important that we look at the problems that existed in 1996-1997. These were transitional problems that should have been dealt with at the time and were not dealt with at the time, that subsequently there were talks of retrieving money back, et cetera, et cetera. But, it should not enter into the situation that we have today. We have school boards now, unlikely they were then, because they were interim boards that were appointed, or the twenty-seven denominational boards that existed prior to the change.
Again, it gets back to the intent. The intent of this amendment is to draw closer to the department, to the minister, the directors and the assistant directors. With Recommendation 65, the Williams report said: Bring them under the umbrella, bring them in and apply the college act to them.
Again, the school board trustees, who are elected, who are running our schools, and running our schools under difficult times, are finally looking at a situation where they are seeing some light of day. Now, four or five years afterwards, after the initial changeover from the twenty-seven to ten, we find an amendment coming forth by the minister, claiming that she wants the Schools Act complied with.
I say to the minister, Mr. Chair, that my amendment makes sure that takes place, and that is as far as need goes. If the minister is going to stick to the amendments, both on the Budget that we just discussed. Obviously, you are sticking to that one, but in this one as well, if the amendments are there we have to question now the intent of the minister, as to where the minister wants to go with this. Clearly, the amendments that I put forth brings everything in line with the Schools Act. How much further do you want to go than that? If you are going further than the Schools Act it means that you are going for a different intent. Not like the minister said, again in this House and outside this House, that her intent with these amendments is to bring everything in line with the Schools Act. I suggest to the minister that my amendments certainly will bring it in line with the Schools Act. Unlike, as she said before, that nothing has changed. Perhaps there is somewhat truth in that because these amendments are not necessary. The amendments to the Schools Act, Bill 8, are not necessary.
The Schools Act is put together in such a manner to protect the public funds, to protect the hiring and dismissal, and the contracts, or whatever, with regard to the directors and assistant directors. So, if the minister is going behind the Schools Act the minister is going for purposes other than what she has stated.
Again, I cannot say it loud enough or long enough, when we look at the amendments to the Schools Act, Bill 8, the only intent now that I can see is that the minister wants to get more control over the hiring of directors and assistant directors, wants to get more control over budget priorities and what is happening out there with regard to money. If this is the case, this is not the intent that she has specified both inside and outside this House. Again, I beg the House to look at the amendments and look at it in the light that it is put forth. That the amendments specifically states that no one is to be hired, no contracts are going to be entered into, unless they comply specifically with the Schools Act. The amendment, Bill 8, is unnecessary in the sense that it goes beyond the Schools Act. It implies intent on the part of the minister that is not in keeping with the school boards with regard to the hiring of directors and assistant directors.
I urge the House to consider the amendment that I have put forth, to vote in favour of the amendment so as to make sure that we do not go down a path whereby the school trustees are again being stripped of the autonomy which is absolutely necessary for this school educational system of K-12 in Newfoundland and Labrador to survive. I will leave it at that and again urge the members of this House to vote in favor of my amendment to ensure that the intent of the Schools Act is carried out throughout this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Chairman, we are back in the same situation again with respect to this particular amendment. Again, on the advice of the departmental solicitor - in fact, the member opposite has acknowledged that his amendments would, in fact, see status quo, because he is saying that there are no amendments necessary to the Schools Act. Obviously, we disagree with that
Again, let's go back to looking at what has happened in the past and the very valid criticism by the Auditor General, that not only the school boards but the department has not followed through in terms of ensuring that the act is followed.
If we wanted to have control over the directors and assistant directors of education we would have implemented recommendation 65, which the member opposite alluded to. On the contrary, under the amendment that we are putting forward to Bill 8 we will get to hire, we will get to fire, we will get to evaluate the performance. Interestingly enough, we have had representation from boards and education directors to say that maybe they overreacted to these amendments; that clearly they understand fully what we are looking to do to accomplish this. Having said that, the powers and duties of school boards contained in section 75 and 76 of the act - we are not looking for amendments to either of those conceptions. What we are looking for instead is to comply with the act and respond to the Auditor General to ensure that we behave responsibly to the expenditure of $500 million dollars of taxpayers money.
Obviously, I cannot agree with the amendment as put forward. Again, on the recommendation of the departmental solicitor.
CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?
It is moved and seconded that clause 3, of Bill 8, be amended as per the amendment which was circulated and debated.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: In my opinion the nays have it.
On motion, amendment defeated.
On motion, clause 3 without amendment, carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, Bill 20.
CHAIR: Order 18, Bill 20.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, upon review of Bill 20 I have a point of clarification and maybe a question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I see from the Explanatory Note the purpose behind this particular legislation which right now the Provincial Court finds itself; that it is unable to meet the requirements from its own panel of judges with respect to a judge who can hold a trial in the French language and therefore this particular bill, Bill 20, provides for the secondment of a bilingual judge from another Province to preside over a trial where an accused has elected to be tried in the French language. Of course, the other official language of our country.
The question I ask the minister is: Why is it that the Department of Justice would not give consideration to the appointment of a local judge, a judge native of this Province, who would meet the requirement of being both bilingual and would meet the requirements of obviously the judicial committee and then the eventual blessing of the Department of Justice upon the appointment of that individual? We see a number of judges being appointed on a relatively regular basis, I say to the minister. In fact, in the last two or three weeks we have had a couple of individuals who were recently appointed, and with upcoming resignations and retirements it is quite conceivable that there will be more judges appointed at the Provincial Court level.
So, my question to the minister is: Why is it necessary, perhaps, to second judges from outside our own jurisdiction when judges are being appointed on a relatively regular basis? There are indeed, individuals in our own Province, native Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who meet the very requirements, I say to the minister, that are being addressed in this particular bill before the House.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a very valid question indeed. Just to point out the fact situation behind this particular amendment. We have in the Province, at the present time, twenty-four judges in total and the act provides for only twenty-four as a maximum. We have several judges who speak French, but not totally fluent to the point of being able to conduct a full trial in French. We did have one judge who was capable and was fluent in the French language; however, he is currently involved in some difficulties of his own and is unavailable and cannot do the trial.
Given that, there would not have been an urgency, probably, except for the fact that, unbeknownst to us in a very quick fashion, three persons in the Province selected trial in the French language. One of those trails is scheduled to proceed in June. So, rather than have the House adjourn and the Province not be in a position to have a French speaking judge and therefore run into some problems with the Charter, we thought it prudent to have someone seconded from another province. In fact, this is not unusual or unique to Newfoundland. Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia both have, in the past, made such an amendment in their act to provide on short notice in an emergency situation to second someone to come in, so that you do not have any violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedom in that regard. That is the reason we are doing it in such short notice this way. I feel it is prudent to have it in there for that precautionary reason in the future.
Regarding the point of selecting amongst our own practitioners, a French speaking judge in the future, I would absolutely agree, that is honourable to do. In fact, until we have a vacancy of the twenty-four, we do not have any vacancies to fill the spot at the present time.
The second difficulty we have is that judges are selected for the Provincial Court in the Province upon a recommendation of a panel, which includes representations from the Supreme Court and representations from the Law Society who interview applicants and propose names to government. We conducted these interviews as recently as the last thirty days, just before the recent two appointments took place, of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Flynn. None of the current applicants for positions with the Provincial Court are fluent. So we have a situation whereby they must comply with the act in terms of the qualifications to be selected as a judge, but we were looking amongst those to see if we did have someone who is bilingual. Unfortunately, no one has applied who is fluent in the French language. It is a matter we have to address. We certainly will be encouraging practitioners in the Province who might be interested, who are fluent, to consider applying but that is the rationale behind it.
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2." (Bill 20)
On motion, clause 1, carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, Order 19, Bill 9.
CHAIR: Order 19, Bill 9, An Act To Provide For the Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on Clause 1.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just very briefly on this particular Bill 9, An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs, this particular piece of legislation, I know we have had an opportunity in significant detail to review Bill 9. In fact, I was a member of the select committee that was announced by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. The findings and the recommendations found on page 5 of the select committee, I think, basically say it all. I will just refer to it briefly. It says: While the Committee recognizes that concerns will be fully canvassed and addressed in a court of competent jurisdiction as part of the process of any litigation that might take place in a reliance on the legislation, the Committee is of the view that these concerns should not stand in the way of a unanimous recommendation by our Committee that Bill 9 go forward for debate and passage in this sitting of the House of Assembly, without amendment.
This was, as is indicated in that last paragraph, Mr. Chairman, a unanimous finding of the select committee, a non-partisan committee, made up of members of both sides of this Legislature. It is clear, really, in its single finding and recommendation, that this bill go forward during this sitting of the House of Assembly without amendment.
Therefore, in recommending that the particular bill go forward without amendment, that, in and of itself, suggests that members on both sides of the Legislature, in view of the evidence that was before the Committee, in view of the many very fine presentations on both sides of the debate that the Committee had the privilege of hearing, in view of its single recommendation, and the wording of that recommendation, we, obviously, on this side of the House, support Bill 9 in its present form and we do not, in any way - as my learned friend, the Leader of the Opposition, indicated earlier - have any willingness or desire to obstruct with respect to this legislation, or indeed any other piece, and we are pleased to see this particular bill go forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs." (Bill 9)
On motion, clauses 1 through 11 carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed a bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report, without amendment, Bills 19, 8, 20 and 9.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I would ask hon. members for their agreement that tomorrow we will discuss government business. In other words we will carry on with legislation, as opposed to doing Private Members' Day.
Mr. Speaker, I move that this House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER: Just for clarification, tomorrow, I understand, is going to be government members' business. Are we sitting at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, or at 1:30 p.m.?
AN HON. MEMBER: At 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: Okay.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday at 2:00 p.m.