The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, pay tribute if I may to two sons of Newfoundland and Labrador who have made a considerable contribution to this Province in their respective professions. This is the first opportunity to do so.
I refer to the passing of Senator Bill Petten, who served our Province with distinction in the second Chamber in the Parliament of Canada for a number of decades, who was very well known for his wit, for his humour, for his humanity and for his unyielding commitment to the best interest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I counted Senator Bill Petten and his wife Bernice - and I know many in this Chamber would agree with me in saying this - as a personal friend. He was particularly pleased and proud of the role he played in the joint House of Commons Senate Committee on repatriating the Constitution in 1982.
He played an important role, and I know met with many members on all sides of the House during the course of the debate, discussion and subsequent constitutional amendments on Term 17 and on the issue of education reform. I recall particularly and personally the role he played in achieving what is undoubtedly a modern day record, in seeing passage of an important and complex bill, Bill C-29, through the Senate, the second Chamber, in one day. In fact, Bill C-29 passed the House of Commons in one day and subsequently the Senate in a second day and that is probably, although I stand to be corrected, a record. That was the bill that gave Canada the capacity to extend its jurisdiction and take action beyond 200 miles. Bill Petten's personal relationships in the Senate and his commitment to the issue of fisheries conservation were vital in seeing a swift passage of that bill of such important interest to Canada, and of such important interest to Newfoundland and Labrador.
I know that all members join me in extending to his family and to his many friends our condolences at this time, but also our great appreciation and celebration of a tremendous contribution to our Province.
I would like as well today, and I think it is appropriate, to acknowledge the life, the work and the contribution and the passing of Michael Harrington, who was a politician for a short period of time, a person who was engaged in the public policy process and made a significant contribution during his time in that process. He was a noted writer, a journalist, somebody who shaped and gave a degree of integrity to journalism in this Province in a very substantial way by his contribution, for many years, in a variety of roles at the Telegram. Mr. Harrington enjoys, I think, the distinction, with Senator Petten, of being understated, of being a quiet man, but a very deep individual and one whose commitment to his Province and country could not possibly be questioned by anybody.
Both these gentleman have made a substantial contribution to our Province and I think it is fitting that a message be sent forth, perhaps in your name, Mr. Speaker, from this Legislature to their respective families acknowledging their passing and, of course, celebrating the great contribution they have made to this society in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is no need, certainly, to revisit the lives the Premier has just indicated, Senator Petten and certainly Michael Harrington. We wish to be associated with those comments and to acknowledge publicly the contribution those two individuals have made to sustaining our way of life, standing up for the cultural identity that is unique in this country, and for providing a level of service that was beyond expectations.
On our behalf as the Official Opposition, and as the PC Party, we would kindly ask the Speaker to forward that letter and the condolences on behalf of all of us in the Chamber to the families.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in recognizing the distinguished lives and sad deaths of both these important Newfoundlanders.
Senator Petten made a significant contribution to the Parliament of Canada. While we might have our own opinions about the institution, certainly Senator Petten was a very fine example of a person whose ability allowed the interests of this Province to be served well in the Upper House. He was a man - anyone who knew him - of great charm and personal warmth, well liked by everyone and not a partisan. One who recognized that everybody had a contribution to make to the life of our Province. I'm sorry to hear of his passing.
Michael Harrington was - many will know - a member of the National Convention, which prior to Confederation considered the situation in this Province. He was for a brief period, as the Premier has mentioned, a politician, but his real contribution to the Province over time was that as a former of public opinion through the pages of the Telegram as a writer, as editor-in-chief for many years, and as the writer, in latter years, of something called "Offbeat History" which wove together many stories about our history and our people. With the passing of both these individuals, it is a sad day for this Province and I would like to joy in requesting you to send our condolences to the families of Senator Petten and Michael Harrington, and our regret at their passing.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in recent years the Province has developed first-class sporting venues in which to host local, national and international sporting events. Just a few short weeks ago, the eyes of all Canadians were on Western Newfoundland as we hosted the Canada Winter Games - the country's premiere sporting event.
The Host Society, under the direction of Mr. Wayne Trask, did a magnificent job in preparing the region for these games. The feedback that I received, and others received, while attending the various venues during the games was nothing short of outstanding; from the meals served at the athletes village to the superb facilities in which the athletes competed, like the Canada Games Centre.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make reference to the athletes who were true ambassadors for our Province throughout these Games. They represented the Province with pride and, in fact, won the Jack Pelech Award which recognizes the province or territory whose athletes, coaches, managers and mission staff best combine competitive performances, good sportsmanship and the spirit of fair play, cooperation and friendship. Our athletes combined the true meaning of competition with record breaking results, winning nineteen medals, the most ever won by Team Newfoundland and Labrador at any Canada Games.
To continue to build on the reputation that the West Coast has earned, government will commit in its 1999/2000 budget: $150,000 for the World Cup Triathlon to be held in Corner Brook later this year; a second instalment of $75,000, for a total of $150,000 for the Commonwealth Judo Championships to be held in Stephenville in 2000; and today I am announcing that the necessary funds to support the 2000 Labrador Winter Games will also be available.
Mr. Speaker, the thousands of volunteers in this Province have also shown that they have both the drive and ability to host first-class provincial, national and international sporting events in this Province. The government is supporting our people by providing the resources to host major sporting events which have tremendous spinoff benefits for the Province. I wish all the event organizers well in their endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: I would like to first of all thank the minister for forwarding to me his Ministerial Statement before the House opened. I would certainly like to echo the words of the minister in relation to what the Canada Winter Games did for this Province, and indeed for the country as a whole. I think, when you look back and think of names like Lee Churchill, and definitely Jed Blackmore, and what he did for the cultural part of the games, indeed to send a message far and wide that Newfoundland is proud of its past and is certainly confident in its future.
I would also like to say to the minister that I am very pleased to see money being put forward for the World Cup. A couple of years ago we had another World Cup in Corner Brook that brought many, many athletes from all around the world to see our great Province and participate in a sport that has taken on a whole new meaning in sporting circles - also, for the Judo Championship and indeed the 2000 Labrador Winter Games.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: It is good to see the Province putting money, in a positive sense, into the athletes and indeed to our many volunteers who give their time and effort to these organizations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The mere knowledge that we are going to host the Canada Winter Games is a source of pride for this Province. The execution of the Games, both in terms of its organization, its demonstrations of our history and culture, and the great success of our athletes, really put our beautiful West Coast of this Province on the map and gave us all great pride. I want to congratulate everybody involved, particularly the 9,000 volunteers. I appreciate that the minister has announced today the funding for the Labrador Winter Games in the year 2000.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Labrador West campus of the College of the North Atlantic will be home to a new Mining Technology Centre. The Mining Centre for Excellence, is expected to be operational in September in Labrador City.
The centre will be positioned to meet current and emerging training needs of industry through a modern facility which provides for well-designed mining technology training programs, providing the essentials of modern mining techniques for both new and experienced miners.
Support for this centre has been received from all significant partners, including Human Resources and Development Canada, Industry Canada, ACOA, the provincial Departments of Education, Human Resources and Employment, and Development and Rural Renewal.
I must point out as well the significant contribution of the former Member of the House of Assembly for Labrador West, Mr. Perry Canning -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: - and my colleague, the hon. Ernest McLean, Member for Lake Melville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Their efforts accounted in no small means toward the establishment of this centre. The proposal is being supported by the College of the North Atlantic and industry by an in-kind contribution of approximately $500,000. The Federal/Provincial Labour Market Agreement has allocated $631,204, and ACOA will contribute $469,000.
The three iron ore mining companies in Labrador - The Iron Ore Company of Canada, Wabush Mines and Voisey's Bay Nickel - will identify the kind of courses required and work with The College of the North Atlantic to determine the curriculum.
Mr. Speaker, individuals trained at this centre will be qualified to meet the emerging needs of the mining industry. This new Mining Centre of Excellence will enhance social and economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the minister's statement. I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy, be it just a couple of minutes ago. It is good news, so I would assume probably the bad news statements will come out a little later.
This initiative certainly is good news, and I would like to relay to the minister that it is going in a good spot. Labrador West is losing some things these days, I understand. I can support it because it is an initiative that is going to take care of a very pressing need, and that is for the mining industry, to provide much necessary training. The partnership with industry, with the federal government, is certainly a good initiative.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. My apologies.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HEDDERSON: Again, it is a good initiative, one that we can support, but it is just a small initiative and we would like to make sure that we see much more of this.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: I was told that there would be one time in your life that you will receive applause from everybody in the House. I guess this is my turn.
We are pretty pleased to see the centre being established in Labrador West, Mr. Speaker. It has been talked about for many years by those of us who lived in Labrador West and it is much needed, particularly with the changing technology and processing methods that are taking place in the mining industry. It is needed now more than ever before in our past, where the priority now is on top quality production.
I would also like to acknowledge -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: - the work that the former member did, Perry Canning, and the hon. Ernie McLean, for the work that they put into this, because I know it was near and dear to their hearts. It was a project they were proud of.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: So again, I welcome the opportunity to look forward to this centre opening and providing a service. Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to make a short statement. Cabinet is in the process of finalizing decisions on the Budget now and will complete those over the weekend. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that Budget Day will be moved forward to this coming Monday from Thursday next.
We have also re-entered negotiations with the nurses' union and both sides have agreed to a media blackout. Therefore, we will not be discussing publicly anything to do with those negotiations, and secondly, any matters arising from those negotiations, including any potential settlement, will not be reflected in the Budget.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure that moving the Budget from Thursday back to Monday is a parliamentary and administrative function as well as for any other reasons you might have. It has come so soon after those lengthy pre-Budget consultations that we all heard of.
On the negotiations, I am sure this will give the nurses time to bring the expectations -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. H. HODDER: - and the promises of the Premier to a set of principles that they can all live with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the moving of the Budget up to Monday will be a part of the announcement that government is making provision for fair, full negotiations with the nurses, and also for recognition and acknowledgement of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary award.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On February 4, five days before the election, the Premier returned from Ottawa, as we all know, on social union talks to tell nurses, and indeed all people of this Province, that they now have the money. He could not announce how much, but on an open line program he now had significant money that would improve the Province's health care system. Less than two weeks later the Premier, his Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health called the federal budget laughable, called it insensitive, and that in fact we would end up with only an additional $9 million. It was not even mentioned, saying that it came as a complete surprise, saying the government was blindsided by the changes that left the Province with, as I said, a net gain of only $9 million.
The question is, Premier: Were you really misled by the Prime Minister of Canada and other premiers in this country, or was it you who did the misleading when you assured the voting public that everything would be fine when you knew that it would not be?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the only person who made misleading fiscal statements during this campaign is the leader of the party that promised -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: - a $900 million tax break for the people of this Province that cannot be afforded.
Mr. Speaker, the public facts surrounding the way in which the CHST has been announced and the change of formula are very well known. If the Leader of the Opposition is interested, as I hope he is, in the stability, in the future of health care in the Province, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he pay close attention to Monday's Budget. Because government will demonstrate its commitment to health care by making sure that our first commitment, from a fiscal point of view, is to sustaining in a proper fashion quality health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the biggest event that took place during the Winter Games was not even reported, and it was the TKO that the Prime Minister scored on this Premier -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: - when he took him - as we would like to say - to the woodshed to remind him of a few things, which I will remind him of right now, Mr. Speaker!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: The National Post reported on February 26, what happened in Corner Brook. The Prime Minister indicated federally, in a federal news conference, and publicly, not only to the people in this Province but to the people of Canada, that this Premier did know what was coming down the track, that it was not blindsided, that he knew full well what money was coming down from transfer payments in Ottawa. The question is: Isn't it true, Premier, that you knew a long time ago about the federal Liberal plan to shift transfers to a per capita funding system, to the detriment of Newfoundland and Labrador? You not only said and did nothing to change it, but you actually supported it. Aren't those the facts, Premier, as they are?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: The TKO was scored on February 9 and the hon. Leader of the Opposition is still seeing stars.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: You know, Mr. Speaker, the last time somebody got in the ring to swing for the Conservative Party and scored a result of about 39 per cent, the Leader of the Opposition was calling for their ouster, and doing so within days of the election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: I suppose that getting another 1 per cent changes the water on the beans; I am not sure.
AN HON. MEMBER: Temporarily.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specific question that the Leader of the Opposition asked, that has already been answered. The answer is that no notice was given to anybody, anywhere, of the change in the formula.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me get it straight. The Prime Minister of the country indicated...
Let me ask this question: In the First Ministers' Conference leading up to Christmas, no discussion on it. About three or four days before the election call, the Deputy Ministers of Finance around the country meet in Ottawa; they did not discuss it. The Primer Minister of the country publicly says that all Premiers knew about it, and the Premier stands today and says nobody had any notice.
Premier, which is it? Did you know or didn't you know? If you knew, why didn't you do anything about it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that, with the break between the last session and this session, the Leader of the Opposition was going to get better at asking these questions. Obviously, he has stuck with the same old script.
The fact of the matter is, this was not raised at the First Ministers' Conference. What the Prime Minister said is that there has been a discussion, going back over a year or two, on the question of equalization at the level of Finance Ministers - the Minister of Finance can quite happily stand and respond - and with officials. That discussion has been ongoing for a long time. We have been trying to achieve things like a floor in the loss of equalization based on population loss. That has been our major objective. Other jurisdictions have been asking for other kinds of changes.
We have been concerned about equalization loss, for example, that will result from increased royalties from oil, and increased royalties from mineral products like nickel, and these have all been discussed; but, no, there was no notice given, not to the minister, not to premiers, and not to officials - specifically not to the Deputy Minister of Finance who, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, he might call as a witness before the appropriate committee of the House and ask for testimony. I am sure the deputy minister, who is an honourable civil servant, will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The difference between the deputy minister and the Leader of the Opposition is that he will not fabricate things in order to try and generate headlines.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this government is fast becoming known as a government that says one thing and does another. On April 30, and again on May 6, we raised it in this House and warned this government of what was coming down the track, when we warned the Premier a year ago to open his eyes, to read the federal proposal in The Ottawa Citizen that was laid out for all to see, to stand up and fight these proposals vigorously, to vigorously stand up and fight for this Province. Why did the Premier and his government simply dismiss that information, fall back to sleep, and play right into the hands of those richer provinces who have made significant gains off the backs of the people in this Province?
Premier, we warned you. You did nothing about it. Why didn't you stand up and fight for the people of this Province who are demanding a quality health care education system?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is an amusing question coming from the member, given that Newfoundland and Labrador, at the meeting of Atlantic Premiers, indeed put forward a position and had endorsed a position by all of the Atlantic Premiers supporting equalization being continued on the basis of the existing formula and not a move to equal per cap, equalization based on per capita.
The fact of the matter is, it was the Conservative Government of Ontario and the Conservation Government of Alberta which have consistently sought this change. If the Leader of the Opposition believes he is as effective as he thinks he might be with his colleagues, he might make a phone call to a few of his colleagues who have been pursuing this course of action and see whether or not they agree with his view.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is, the change has occurred. It is not the course of action that any of the Atlantic Provinces would have preferred. We certainly know it is not the course of action that the Province of Quebec prefers as well, but we have to get on with life.
We have said that the commitments we have made to the health care system are going to be sustained. We have said that all of those things we indicated we will do will be done, and more besides.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: Be here Monday for a full accounting of how the taxpayers' dollars are going to be spent.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: What a piece of work! The fact of the matter is that, as a federal member representing this Province, he stood in the House of Commons and supported such a change, Premier. That is the fact of the matter. The fact of the matter is that accountability in this House has to be maintained and answered. You cannot speak from both sides of your mouth.
I have been through the Liberal Red Book from top to bottom. Would you kindly tell me on what page in this book you promised to put the political interests of the Prime Minister of Canada ahead of the interests of the people of this Province? Could you reference that, please?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as we saw during the debate, I had been through the Tory Blue Book, obviously, in greater detail than the Leader of the Opposition. I am glad he has finally gotten around to reading our book.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Another issue needs to be discussed: During the election, saying one thing, wooing voters, doing another. The Premier wrote a letter, met with the Pensioners Association - NAPE - indicating that now this government truly understands the issues facing pensioners.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, that was not what was said today, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: The question is this: Why don't we do the honourable thing today? Why don't we guarantee pensioners in this Province an increase that was exactly what was negotiated with NAPE, and peg it to it from here on in, that whenever negotiated increases are made, they automatically get them? Let us make a commitment today, Premier. Let this House do it right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can play today, if he wants, to seek to have the affirmation of the gallery, if that is what he wants. The reality is that what he just said is false. I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition is unaware that what he just said is false. I hope we can begin this session by speaking from a basis of fact.
The Leader of the Opposition just said that I met with the association. I did not meet with the association.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER TOBIN: Let us put the facts down. There was a request that came from NAPE, Mr. Austin Deir, directly to the negotiator at Treasury Board - not to me, not to the Liberal Party, and not to anybody on this bench - over a period of several weeks, asking whether or not government would be willing to sit and meet with NAPE on the issue of indexing and on the issue of pensioners after the election. What I confirmed was that yes, we would be willing to do so. I think that went out just a few days before the election. I do not think it impacted the election one way or another. Quite frankly, it was a letter sent in response to a request by NAPE and communicated through Treasury Board.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, nobody is trying to play to the gallery. Two years ago, we took a position with respect to public service pensioners. We took it again this fall. We thought so much about it we outlined it clearly in our election policy book.
The question today is: Will you as Premier, on behalf of the government, make a commitment to the public service pensioners, many of whom are living below the poverty line because they have had no increase, their pensions are not indexed? Surely, can we make a commitment? Can you make a commitment - if you do, we will support it - that the increase negotiated with the bargaining agent, NAPE, will be passed directly on to the public service pensioners? Yes or no?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the government intends, as it committed itself to do, to address in the Budget on Monday the issue of providing some additional assistance to the lowest paid, to the poorest of the poor, amongst our senior citizens in this Province.
I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, and to all members of this House, that we have to remember that there are many pensioners in this Province who have not pubic pensions but private pensions who are also poor. There are tens of thousands of senior citizens in this Province who have no pension at all, public or private.
What we have committed as a government to do, recognizing that the dollars that we draw from are public dollars - they belong to everybody. They belong to people who are former public servants, they belong to people who work in the private sector, they belong to people who have no pension, a public or a private one, but who are poor nevertheless. That if we are going to reach out and try and give a measure of assistance to senior citizens above the age of sixty-five who are poor, we have to help them if they are poor, whether they are public or whether they are private or whether they have no pension at all. What is wrong with that kind of an approach to fairness?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Finance. On the night of the federal Budget, February 16, and the morning after, the Minister of Finance made it crystal clear to the media, and his words were that he was very disappointed with the Budget, it was laughable, it was an insensitive document, that it made him angry, that it meant taking money from the rich provinces and giving it to the poor. These are pretty tough words from a finance minister. Yet, just days later our horse-whipped Premier was in Corner Brook. He was standing next to the Prime Minister, and he said the issue is closed as far as Newfoundland and Labrador is concerned.
I ask the Minister of Finance, is he joining the Premier in this charade of retracting the harsh things he said about the federal Budget, or is he going to stand by the things he said there on February 16 and February 17? Which is it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister's office has already spoken to the silly report which the Opposition critic now wants to try and cite about our very good meeting that we had in Corner Brook. All I can say to the finance critic, and what I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, both of whom forecast that the Province would have a $200 million deficit this year - that is what you forecast repeatedly, and we can pull you out the citations -, that you have been off by at least several hundred million dollars.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Premier we are quoting the words of his Minister of Finance, and we assume that he is a knowledgable person. The words that I used are indeed the words of the minister. I say to the Minister of Finance that either the federal Budget is going to hurt Newfoundland and Labrador, as the Premier and the minister said on February 16 or February 17, or it is not going to hurt us. You cannot have it both ways.
I remind the minister of what is happening in British Columbia, where government is in big trouble because of serious repercussions about misleading the people about the impact of a budget. I ask again: which of these two scenarios is correct? Is the federal Budget going to hurt Newfoundland and Labrador with all its impact, or is it going to be helpful to Newfoundland and Labrador? What is the impact short term and long term?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the time, what happened with the CHST was that there was a change in policy that was not known to the government. The distribution formula for the amount of money that Ottawa sends to the provinces to help with health care education and social services was changed. It was a change that we had opposed and the federal government saw fit to implement it without notice to the Province.
All the things I said I stand by, as did my colleague the Minister of Health. Now, having said that, there were items in the federal Budget that were beneficial. The equalization payments are up substantially, so on balance the Province will receive more money. The hon. member can characterize that as helping or hurting the Province. In my view, receiving more money is helpful. Having said that, we would have preferred the CHST not to be changed.
As regards an ongoing dialogue, that is an argument we have lost with the federal government. We have many more matters to deal with them on and we intend to be constructive in our relationship. As the Premier said at the time, there comes a point when you have made your point, you win or lose an argument, and then you move on to discuss the relevant issues of the day. We do not have the luxury afforded to the Opposition to be negative all the time, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Finance knows that the change from a needs basis to a per capita structure was in the Liberal policy booklet that was federally brought out in 1993. He knows that. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this change will be extremely hard on Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the minister again, can he please explain why he considers the matter closed, as the Premier said, when it will mean in the long term potentially deeper health cuts, deeper education cuts, and more suffering for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to lobby the federal government to make changes that are beneficial to the Province. What the hon. member is losing sight of is that there was more money for the Province, and my point was that it is not as much as it should have been and that we would have liked: as the hon. member knows, a net of $17 million on CHST, rather than $35 million that we had been led to believe we would receive. As in any case with any government or any parties, the dialogue will continue. As far as we can see the federal government has made the change and it is unlikely that will be changed back, but there are other matters to pursue that we expect will be productive.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. I might add the Premier and the Minister of Finance were not the only ones to trash the federal Budget, just four weeks ago. The Minister of Health and Community Services stated bluntly to the media, and I quote, that: the Province is going to take a very hard hit, end of quote, because of the federal Budget. Now she said the federal Budget has created a two-tiered health care system and that is not good enough.
I want to ask the minister responsible for the health of people in this Province this question. If it is not good enough, then do you agree with the Premier that the issue with the federal Budget is a closed one for this government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with both the Premier and my colleague the Minister of Finance in that we will continue to lobby the federal government to address the issue of CHST changes and continue to bring forward our issues to those colleagues.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The shift to a per capita system for transfer allocations, I say to the minister, is a very frightening one for this Province. Nowhere else is it more evident than in the Department of Health and Community Services.
Is the minister aware of the advisory report on a strategic social plan that was drafted by Penny Rowe and presented to this government a couple of years ago? Is she aware that this document concludes that there is a grave threat to our Province because young people are disappearing and leaving no one here to provide the basic revenues that are needed to care for an ever-increasing number of our senior people? I ask the minister, does this shift to per capita transfers threaten Newfoundland and Labrador? Or, I ask the minister, is it closed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As we have all pointed out earlier this afternoon in Question Period, we will continue to lobby to have the restored formula put back for CHST funding, because naturally we would prefer to have the older formula instead of just a per capita based formula. Because obviously out-migration does have an impact, and that is an obvious statement. We will continue to make our case. We will continue to try to lobby the federal government to restore the existing formula, but we have to work with what we have, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So she agrees with the Premier on my first question, but now she is disagreeing with the Premier on the second question, that it is not closed. The Premier said it was closed and you are saying that it is not closed.
Minister, over the past few weeks I've received calls from people all over this Province with horror stories about waiting lists, cancelled procedures, and patients sitting on chairs in emergency departments over night for hours on end. No one thought things would get worse, but things have, Minister. Under your direction things have got worse in this Province in health care.
Minister, my question to you is: why, except for the few hours immediately after the federal Budget, have you been silent about federal budgetary changes that are eroding health care in our Province and having a significant effect on the health of our people? Even The Telegram today asks: Where is our minister?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, why are you, of all ministers, participating in the Premier's charade that the Prime Minister can do no wrong and that the federal Budget is closed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier made it very clear that the end result was more money for our Province as a result of the federal Budget. We will also repeat again to you that I think you need to listen very closely on Monday to the provincial Budget to see our commitment to health care, and then you will see where our priorities lie.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is not what we were led to believe. The change of only $9 million extra is less than nine-tenths of 1 per cent of the funding that is now spent in health care out of this provincial Budget. I ask the minister, do you stand by your statement that was made on February 16 and again on February 17 that the federal Budget will hit Newfoundland and Labrador very hard, or are you now saying that you do not know what you are talking about? I say to the minister, if you do not know what you are talking about then -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: - I ask the minister, how can you expect anyone to believe that you know what you are talking about now?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) the rhetorical question, here we go again, Mr. Speaker.
I will say again, Mr. Speaker, that you are making an assumption, that the $9 million is what there is to put in health care. You cannot second guess and you cannot assume what will or will not be in the Budget. You are making an assumption about what will be put in the Budget on Monday and I think you have to listen. We have been very clear on our position about CHST and about the overall bottom line on the federal budget.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question too is to the Minister of Health and Community Services. Minister, your leader, the Premier, made a pilgrimage to Ottawa during the provincial election and returned with much fanfare and the big announcement that he now had the money in his back pocket to improve the Province's health care system. Since the election the real truth is now evident and the amount of money made available is certainly far less than what is needed.
I ask the minister if she will be seriously looking at directing any new monies towards operating level III chronic care beds in this Province, and if Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista is on her list for consideration?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I invite the member to come to the House on Monday to hear the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, $1.4 million of taxpayers' money was spent to refurbish part of the Golden Heights Manor complex and created ten extra beds. Surely studies were done to show that the addition was needed at that time, and statistics show that a need presently exists to have those beds opened and occupied. Will the minister commit here today to have those beds open to reflect the need that exists today in this rural area?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will commit to you and to the people of Bonavista what we have been committing to do, and that is we will look at the whole system as it relates to the needs based on the home support system, based on the level of care. We will make the decision based on what is in the best interest of that system and the services we have to provide. That is how we will make our decisions on those beds.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I make the plea to you today that there are ten beds, as you well know, existing in the Golden Heights Manor that are lying there now vacant. My plea to you is to look at the need and if one bed is needed or if two beds are needed or if ten beds are needed, if you will look positively at opening up the number of beds that are needed to reflect the need in the area. I also understand that the union membership have agreed that they will work with you in making sure that their levels of work will reflect only the need that is being brought forward by one or two beds being opened if the need arises.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If that need arises that will be the discussion that we will have with the board. They will make the appropriate decision in consultation with the people in the area and with my department, but it is not a decision that will be made here. It will be a decision that is made when we have the right environment to open those beds, if in fact they do require to be opened at all.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the Province. We have, in the recent past, witnessed some disturbing events at our youth centre in Whitbourne. There have been some allegations of abuse over the recent past. We have had a history of escapes, certainly in particular in the past number of weeks, and of course we have had a very tragic suicide.
My question directly to the Minister of Justice is simply: What is the basis, or what rationale can the minister possibly have when he states that there is no need for a formal public inquiry at this time?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A public inquiry is ordered when there is no other process available for matters of a public nature to be investigated. In each of the three matters that the hon. member mentions, there are appropriate mechanisms to inquire into and supply to government and the public the information necessary to make appropriate decisions.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would ask the minister, would he be more specific? The people of this Province are saying, loudly and clearly, there is now a need for such a public review and public inquiry. What are the examples, when the minister states there are other avenues, other mechanisms? Please be more specific, Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
MR. DICKS: I am disappointed with the hon. member. He is a lawyer; he should know these.
First of all, with respect to the recent tragic deaths, there are four levels of inquiry. The first is an internal inquiry which is carried out immediately. The second is that there is a police investigation - in this case the RCMP - which determines whether or not there are charges laid, or warranted, based on what occurred in their view. Thirdly, there is the report of the medical examiner, a qualified physician, a forensic pathologist, who is probably the most knowledgeable person, or one of the two most knowledgeable people on the Island as to the events surrounding death. Fourthly, there is a judicial inquiry. In fact, there is one ongoing that we may expand to include this, but it is not proper for us to make that decision until we receive that information.
In the case of the alleged abuse, there is a civil process, that statements of claim have been entered. That would be subject to trial in the civil division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, should these people proceed. In addition, there have been investigations; there have been some criminal charges which have been heard in court in respect of one individual which form part of the complaint, not all of it.
Let me say, finally, with respect to the escapes, if the hon. member reads Dr. Linda Inkpen's report, he will find it helpful. What she speaks of there, on pages 30 and 31, is what is called acceptable risks.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I can assure the public, if they want to create an institution that no inmate will escape from, we can build it. It is very simple. You build a fifty-foot perimeter, you put razor wire on the top, you have guard dogs, you have police with machine guns; and we can design it so that light does not escape, let alone people.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: But, ask yourself the second question. Is that the environment we want to create in which we are going to place offenders who are that young? The governing principle with young offenders is something called rehabilitation. You can create it, and you can make hardened criminals that will never surface out of this black hole; but I say to the hon. member that in designing programs in institutions that care for young offenders -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to finish up quickly.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will finish.
- there is the notion of acceptable risk. If we are going to develop a situation in which young people will earn the trust and learn to accept personal responsibility, some will abuse it and some will escape. That is, in Dr. Inkpen's review, in mine as well, and those who work in our institutions, an acceptable risk if we are going to have the prospect of rehabilitation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, today, introduce the following Private Member's Resolution:
WHEREAS the failure of the Government of Canada to implement measures adequate to control the population of harp seals on the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador has allowed the harp seal population to expand, unchecked, to levels that further threaten the depleted groundfish stocks on which numerous communities and people have traditionally depended; and
WHEREAS the Government of Canada, under the Constitution, has sole management jurisdiction for seals with respect to the setting of quotas; and
WHEREAS it is expedient that the Government of Canada take immediate measures to reduce and properly control the harp seal population; and
WHEREAS the Government of Canada has proven many times over the years, in discharging its fisheries management responsibilities, that slowness to act can have disastrous consequences; and
WHEREAS it is our responsibility, as the elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to ensure that the government and people of Canada are made properly aware of the details and urgency of this matter;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon the Government of Canada to take immediate measures that will be effective in properly reducing and controlling the harp seal population along our coasts;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an all-party Committee of the House of Assembly be struck to impress upon the federal Minister of Fisheries and the Government of Canada the urgency of addressing the seal overpopulation crisis.
Thank you.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some hon. citizens of our Province who were present in the lobby earlier this afternoon. The petition reads as follows:
To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly showeth;
WHEREAS provincial government retirees have not received an increase to their pension benefits in ten years; and
WHEREAS pension benefits received by government retirees in this Province have not been indexed to protect them against inflation; and
WHEREAS the government of this Province has made a commitment to give serious consideration to increasing benefits in indexing pensions;
THEREFORE WE, the undersigned, call upon the government to provide a flat increase for provincial government retirees receiving the smallest pensions, a retroactive 7 per cent increase over thirty-nine months to all provincial government employees, and indexing of provincial government retirees' pensions to compensate for the effects of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, we know that today the members of the general public of this Province gathered from all parts of the Province to come to this hon. House - it is their House, it is their Province - and they wanted to tell the government that they are not very happy with the way in which the government has handled the retirees' public service pension plan.
A the Member for Bonavista South is saying to me here, to the aside, they should not have to do that. It should be their right that they should be looked after. They are the people who worked for the employer. If you compare what is happening in the other Atlantic Provinces to what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, the retirees of this Province come off a distant fourth. We say that this government should be looking after the people who worked for it, the same way that Bowaters or Kruger or some other large national company should have plans in place to look after their retirees as well.
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that there are people in this Province who are retired, who need to have special care. We acknowledge that. Some people worked for employers who were insensitive, uncaring, and the governments over the years did not make regulations to assure that all of the people of this Province would have a decent income upon their retirement. However, in saying that, we say to the government, that is an initiative that we can support; however, Mr. Speaker -
[Disturbance in the gallery.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask that the member be removed from the gallery.
The Chair will recess the House until the galleries are cleared.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley has two minutes left.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to bring to the attention of the House again the living conditions of the Public Service retirees in this Province. About 900 of our retired public servants live on pensions that are less than $3,600 annually. That amounts to less than $300 per month. A further 2,184 of them live on less than $400 per pay period. That is less than $9,000 a year. The average public service pension is around $11,000 annually, or less than $1,000 a month.
We are saying to this government, we are saying to this Province, and we have said to this Province through our public statements - as part of the PC Party, it is in our election platform, it is in our policy documents - that we believe there should be a way in which retired public servants are looked after by their former employer, namely the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the issue of pensions was not put on the collective bargaining table because it was not allowed to be there. We want to say to the government that something needs to be done. There are commitments that have been made. There are issues that need to be addressed. While the initiatives that are rumoured to be in the Budget coming next Monday may address some of those issues, and some people who do not receive public service pensions - and we agree with that -, in advance we are saying anything you can do for the poorest of the poor people, that is good, but that does not eliminate the responsibility that you have to your former employees.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are saying to the government today -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: - listen to your retired public servants. They deserve your support, they deserve better. They gave you their service. Now they need your help.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today for a couple of minutes and support the petition as presented by my colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley. This is a petition which is certainly no stranger in this particular Chamber. This particular petition and the thrust of this petition has been presented on numerous occasions. It is unfortunate, and it is indeed sad, that on day one of the opening of this session of the House of Assembly the thrust of this petition must be brought and presented once again.
What it shows is there is a complete lack of understanding by members opposite as to the plight of so many thousands of our senior, retired, public service pensioners. Essentially, members opposite are saying: We could not care less. That is why it is necessary for thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who find themselves in this situation to once again sign their names in desperation, and present a petition to the members of this Chamber. It is indeed a sad day, and it is the first day of the opening of this session and here we are once again, presenting the very unfortunate and sad situation of so many thousands of our public service pensioners.
As my hon. colleague indicated, we are talking approximately 11,000 or 12,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have devoted and dedicated their lives to the public service of this Province.
Regardless of political parties, these people have dedicated their lives and have dedicated their service to the public of this Province. All they are asking for at this time is some recognition by the powers that be, by the government of this Province, to listen to their concerns and to do something to rectify what is for so many thousands of our public service pensioners a very difficult situation.
That is why they have signed their names once again. That is why these petitions are being presented on day one of this session. They need the ear, they are asking for attention. They are asking for this government to finally, and once and for all, listen. Unfortunately, that has not been done. We are told that there may be some redress in Monday's Budget. We will wait and see. However, pensioners are very cautious, they are very concerned, and they are very skeptical. That is right, I say to my colleague the Member for Lewisporte. They have good reason to be very skeptical.
We will wait and see, but it is indeed a sad reflection of what is happening in our Province when again our retired public service pensioners must come to the floor of this particular Chamber and seek redress in this fashion.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals who are concerned with the issue of public service pensioners. They state in their petition that the public provincial government retirees have not received an increase to their pension benefits in ten years, and that pension benefits received by government retirees in this Province have not been indexed to protect them against inflation; and whereas the government of this Province has made a commitment to give serious consideration to both increasing benefits and indexing pensions, the undersigned are calling upon the government for a flat increase for government retirees receiving the smallest pensions, a retroactive 7 per cent over thirty-nine months to all provincial government employees, and indexing a provincial government retirees pension to compensate for the effective inflation.
Mr. Speaker, the way in which the former employees of this government are being treated by this government, by this Ministry, is nothing short of disgraceful. I do not support speaking from the gallery in this House, but we can see the level of frustration that this organization, that these individuals, have with a government who misled them during the election campaign that they were going to fix this matter, that led them to believe that government was serious about doing something about the problem that presented itself.
What do we have? We have a hint that in Monday's Budget we are not going to have anything for former public servants. What we are going to have is some seniors' benefit for those over sixty-five by way of a tax credit, a seniors' over sixty-five tax credit.
Now we know that many of the people who are protesting this, many of the public servants pensioners, aren't even anywhere near sixty-five, yet they are reliant solely upon a public service pension; in many cases, not a full pension but only a partial pension because their years of service did not allow them to receive a full pension, because they were made redundant or laid off or in other ways were not able to have their proper years.
We are dealing, as a former speaker said, with over 900 of the public service pensioners who have less than $300 a month. What is this government's answer to them? The government's answer to them is not what they led them to believe during the election campaign. Not what they led them to believe in order to achieve a result that would see them not having protests during the election campaign.
What government is now saying to them is that the solution for you is to go to the social services office, to go to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and seek some assistance from the public person, instead of getting the recognition that this government has an obligation to give them. What we have had happen in this Province is that previous governments failed to invest the contributions from employees, and failed to make their own contributions. Those two contributions together with their investment would have provided sufficient funding to ensure that this would not be happening to public service pensioners.
The government should acknowledge that a solution to this problem does not have to come immediately from the Budget, from the bottom line of this year. The pension fund is in better shape than it was supposed to be by now, and the pension fund and government's contribution to it should be adequate to look after the needs of these people.
A solution has to be found, a solution that recognizes government's obligation to its own former employees. That is what has to happen, not a program for those over sixty-five. That is a different group of people than the public service pensioners who had a regular increase and a legitimate expectation that they would get a regular increase as public sector wages rose.
This government has failed their commitment and they are failing these people. I think that these protests will continue. These are legitimate protests. They recognize that government has failed them. I think, as one of the leaders has said, that the Premier put his hand on his shoulder and led him to believe that they would be treated fairly by this government. We have yet to see that, and I call on government now to treat these individuals fairly and give them the increase that they deserve.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think everybody in this Province, when they look at the situation that the retired government employees are facing, agree that it is outrageous and deplorable. One person said that a measure of a just society is how they treat retirees, seniors, and the less fortunate. I think if we use those standards in this Province to look at how we treat people in those categories, we certainly would not be far up the yard stick.
Government misuse of public pension money over the years is largely the cause of not being able to address their concerns now. It is ironic that this government, and the federal government and other jurisdictions, have legislation in place making sure that what happens to their own employees cannot happen to employees in the private sector. It is good for people in the private sector for government to have legislation preventing this; yet, at the same time, they do not have it to protect their own employees.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to make a few comments with respect to both petitions that were just presented with respect to increases to public service pensioners, just for matters of context and for some of those who might misunderstand what they see happening in the Legislature today.
This is not the first time that this issue has been debated on the floor of this Legislature. As a matter of fact, petitions were presented days and days on end before the Legislature recessed for Christmas. This issue has been in the domain of this Legislature for months leading up to today.
I can understand why some members of the general public coming to our galleries might think that people are treating the matter lightly or not listening because they are not listening to a particular speaker on a particular day. Everyone in this Legislature has heard this issue debated at length repeatedly in this Legislature.
It was also an issue that was front and centre in the public realm in the Province during the last provincial election campaign. The parties staked out certain positions. The position of the Opposition, which are sitting here in Opposition, is that they would grant increases as they had done when they were the government for seventeen years.
The recommendation that was made, just for the record, in an independent study of the pension plans, was that whoever the government was to be in 1989, because it was a report done for the Conservative government, that the first thing they should stop doing - because the pension plans were going into serious deficit - was to give unfunded increases out of the pension plans that were not paid for. That was a study done by the Progressive Conservative government of the day, of which the now Member for Lewisporte was a member, became the leader, became the Premier, had the study. Now, with that kind of a recommendation being the first recommendation, that nobody was going to do any pensioner a favour by giving them an increase that was not provided for in the pension plan, what they were going to do was to further jeopardize the ability of the pension plans to even pay the benefits that had been purchased with the premiums that were put into the plans by the workers, by the employers, and with the accrued interest over the years.
That was the primary recommendation given to the government of the day. In the election campaign, this government said that our plan is to have a benefit that will assist all of those retired seniors who have the low levels of income that we hear talked about in the debates in this House; not only public sector pensioners from those who worked for the government, not only those with their pension plans, but people who do not even have a pension, who happen to be finished work. There are a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador who worked all their lives for employers who had no pension plan.
We committed to try to find a way to help everybody. So all of those who suggest they are living on $11,000 a year or less, this government said in the election: We will try to help you, whether you work for the provincial government, whether you work for somebody else, or whether you do not have a pension at all. We will try to help everybody.
Mr. Speaker, when we make a commitment saying we are going to try to do that - that is why we say we will lay out for the public and unfold whatever plan we have in a Budget that the Minister of Finance will present in a few days' time.
It is obvious that the Official Opposition, supported by the NDP members, are fully willing, for political purposes only, to repeat the absolute mistakes of the past which were advised against by an independent commissioner, which said only pay for increases and benefits from pension plans if they have been funded in the years that the pension plans were developed.
We will live up to our commitments if we possibly can, and we will let the others stay in Opposition and promise whatever they want into the future.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of petitioners I spoke about it today in Question Period, but I was inclined - I am angered today by the Minister of Mines and Energy, and the verbiage that he just got on with. Let us present the minister with some facts. He wants to talk about -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I have another petition, I say to the Minister of Finance.
He wants to talk about, for political purposes. What was done to petitioners with a letter signed by the Premier during the election, if he wants to talk about political purposes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: You, Sir, were part of that - and he talks about political purposes. During an election, last year, the year before -
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to the point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned the letter again that was part of Question Period today, during the election. Again, it was made quite clear; the representatives of the public service unions asked for a commitment during the election that the government would meet with them after the election, and that commitment was given by the government, simple and straightforward.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: We have to acknowledge, whether we like it or not, that when we look at spending priorities, had successive governments, both Liberal and PC, done privately what was done to the pension plans here in terms of taking money from the pension plans to build infrastructure, those same successive governments, both Liberal and PC, would be held accountable in a court of law. We have to understand clearly that we owe a financial obligation to public service pensioners. If you look at -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: It is not true, I say to the minister. Every time the issue of negotiation came up, Treasury Board said they will not be negotiating public service pension increases. That was Treasury Board's response. That is a fact.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there are public service pensioners today who are living below the poverty line, no question about it. We will see the type of commitment the Premier talks about and government talks about in the federal budget, but the reality is this: The issue has not changed. In ten years, public service pensioners, like every public servant, like every member in the House, we are under wage freezes and rollbacks. We should have the political fortitude to grant to public service pensioners what we granted for ourselves and what we negotiated for people within the bargaining unit known as NAPE.
Minister of Mines and Energy, it is a question of priority, Sir. It is a question of where this government places its priorities and how it deals with people. We will see that on Monday, but I am not hopeful; I will say that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to add just a few comments to this particular petition here. It is of particular concern because there is no indexation of pensions there, and that is something that certainly has to be pursued. In the interim, until such time as there is an indexing of pensions, government has, of their own initiative, given increases to pensioners. It has traditionally happened. The last time it happened, I think, was in 1989. It has not happened since that, since 1989. It has been ten years and there has not been any. In fact, a lot of these people went through wage rollbacks when the best years they had were stymied by having rollbacks during years that counted for pensionable years, and they ended up getting lower pensions than they normally would. They bore the brunt of wage rollbacks and now they are out getting much lower pensions than they normally would.
I really think, because of the wage rollback they had to undergo, and there have been a large number of people who went out in that period, there should be a recognition that there should be some voluntary contribution by this government to increase those pensions. All people receiving those pensions were affected by it. People who went out recently, people who went out earlier when the voluntary - it is not indexation but it had a similar effect when government gave increases to these. That, in effect, has not been there. It has been ten years. We know what ten years has done, with inflation and the erosion of a dollar in ten years.
In all fairness, there has been no movement, there has been nothing. It has gotten to the point where, over the past ten years, there has been nothing. Had there been some increases, some contributions to that over the period of time, something could have been done to prevent people having to come out in the Confederation Building, out in an election...
I have every reason to believe the gentleman who spoke today and said the Premier put his hand on his shoulder as he indicated. I do not know. It is only him or the Premier who can say whether he spoke to that gentleman during the campaign.
Those types of things are giving a perception out there that something would be done, and not doing something... Hopefully, the Budget coming down will make some recognition of that. We have not had anything to indicate it is. All we have heard is income for people on low income. They need that, that is important, but there has to be a recognition of ten years. Inflation has eaten into a pension for too many reasons. Number one, the money was used by this Province for people who were employed by the Province's employers. Number two, a lot of people out there today face a much lower pension because of wage rollbacks and restraints that we had here. I think it has been grossly unfair.
The government has not even been willing to acknowledge giving any increase across the board at all to pensioners. I have not heard that from government, as being an admission even to deal with that in any way, shape, or form in terms of an increase.
I hear the government's argument. There is some validity to all sides, but there is also a recognition that something has to be done; something that is fair and something that is going to allow these people to move (inaudible) until a negotiated - and I know it was mentioned, I think, by the Premier - indexation in the future. We really need to get to indexation of pensions. For anybody employed in the public service there should be some negotiations.
I know there is a price to pay with that, but it did not happen with these people. These people are out now. We cannot revisit it while they are working and there is equal contribution, but we can do something at least to compensate for it, and that is to give increases to these people so they can at least fight inflation. Thank God, inflation has not been so significant during those years; if not, they would be in far, far greater straits than they are today.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: I wanted to follow on the words of the Opposition House Leader with respect to his comments with respect to the petition that has been presented, because the Opposition House Leader, in his comments - and I thank him for this - he has acknowledged and made clear something which I find we need to rise and clarify today.
The Opposition House Leader said: We have not seen any indication from government thus far that they are prepared to give any across-the-board increases to public service pensioners. The Opposition House Leader is absolutely right; that is precisely right. We have not said anywhere, any time, any place - and we took a lot of heat for it during the election campaign, took a lot of criticism for it during the election campaign - that we were prepared to proceed at this time with across-the-board increases.
What we said, and many members on this side - and we certainly received lots of representation. I met many protesters in many places all across the Province. What we have consistently said is: If this is an issue, we are going to talk about indexing in the long-term, it has to be negotiated at the negotiating table with NAPE. We have said, with respect to the broader issue of whether or not there would be an across-the-board increase, that we were not prepared to make a commitment, that we would do such even during an election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, we were criticized for that both in demonstrations, on Open Line radio shows, and many other places all during the campaign. Likewise, during the course of the campaign, issues that were raised by the nurses union, we said: Those have to be dealt with at the negotiating table. I met protesters every day - sometimes four, five or six times a day. I was very conscious and very aware that it was going to be important during this campaign not to commit to do things that we were not absolutely certain of being able to do if, at the end of the election, we were called upon to form a government again.
Mr. Speaker, those are the facts. I'm proud we can sit here, as a party, not having promised everything to everybody every time there was pressure brought to bear on this government. That allows us to give the best and most objective consideration to the dollars we have, and put those dollars to the best use possible.
I want to say this to the Opposition House Leader. The government does understand that there are tens of thousands of senior citizens in this Province who are amongst the poorest of the poor in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I know that the Opposition House Leader would acknowledge as well - and I cannot believe it is the position, and I won't suggest it is the position of the Opposition or the NDP - that we should do something for poor seniors who happened to have spent part of their working career working for government, but for all other poor senior citizens nothing should be done. That if you happen to be a senior citizen who has a private sector pension plan and who is poor, there is nothing for you from the public purse, from your purse; if you happen to be a senior citizen who is poor, very poor, and has no pension at all, public or private, there is nothing for you from the public purse, your purse; but if you happen to be a senior citizen who worked for government and who is poor, there should be something for you and for you only.
I believe we need to look at our priorities. We need to recognize those who are most poor, those who are in greatest need. Whether they happened to have spent their careers working for government, or their careers working in retail, or their careers, perhaps, not having a steady job and not having accumulated a pension, all of them - if you are poor you need an equal measure of consideration, an equal access to whatever the government can afford to give. That is the nature of the program we are going to bring forward Monday.
I can tell you there are seniors, those who have the smallest pensions, those who have the greatest need, those who worked for government for many years, who will be assisted, former public service employees; but so too will assistance be offered to those who work in the private sector and those who had no pension at all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 1,284 residents of my constituency from the Placentia area. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:
We, the undersigned citizens of the Placentia region, hereby draw your attention to the existing unsafe conditions as they now exist on the Trans-Canada Highway near the Whitbourne-Blaketown exits;
WHEREAS it is the duty of government, through the enactment and enforcement of the Highway Safety Act, to protect the citizens not only from commuters but also from unsafe highways; and
WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority of any government;
THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government take all measures necessary to ensure that a divided highway continues past the Whitbourne-Blaketown exits, and that the twinned highway include the Argentia access overpass, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
I am pleased today to have the opportunity to stand and speak on this very important issue and to present this petition on behalf of the people I represent.
I guess as the prayer of the petition states, it must be of utmost importance that we place safety as the number one concern. Studies have shown, all across this country of ours, that a divided highway is, without a doubt, the safest route to take.
Back in 1996 the people of the area had the opportunity to sit down with people from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and review three different plans that all allowed for an overpass at the Argentia access. These three plans came from a company that was hired by the provincial government, a company known as Davis Engineering, at a cost of $40,000, to come up with plans that would bring forward the rural arterial divided highway standard for a speed of 100 kilometres.
Those people that day spent the whole day in the Whitbourne area, going over these three plans and trying to figure out which one was not only the most important to them but, indeed, the safest. They decided on one of those plans, and were very pleased that the consultation process had taken place where they felt they had some input.
Over the next couple of years this government arbitrarily announced they were going to start the road. On July 21, 1998, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. Matthews at the time, announced that work would begin on this road during the next construction season, but he did not tell the people that they had changed the plans they had put forward to the people a few years before that. This, I guess, is what brought about a meeting in Blaketown on November 18, 1998, where the people once again asked to have put forward the plan for the twinned highway and what the government was planning to do. This new plan that was put forward at that November 18 meeting in Blaketown did not have a divided highway passing through Whitbourne and did not, I repeat, address the Argentia access overpass.
I am sad to say that over the past couple of years we have had fatalities in that area and people from my district have paid the ultimate price. I say it is about time that this government go back to the original plan and address the safety concern that was put forward. It is about time that this government go to the people in the Placentia area and hold a public consultation process on the plans for the highway out in that area, because it affects many people from my district who travel over that highway each and every day. These 1,284 people are only the beginning of further petitions to come from that area relating to this project. It is a very important concern for these people.
I say that less than a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to attend another meeting out in Dildo where the people of the area once again came together to address their concerns, and address the safety concern most of all. These people came forward and asked once again that they have an opportunity to have some input into what was going in that area. Mr. Speaker, we were left with the impression after that meeting that over $3 million would be spent on road reconfiguration in that area that would only take away one left turn. It has been known far and wide through studies and through facts that have been put forward, not only by the people in the area but indeed people before, through the Department of Works, Services and Transportation -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: - that brought forward these concerns, to be put forward, that a divided highway is the safest way to go.
I stress, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people in my area, from a safety point of view, from a life point of view, that we look very seriously at making sure the divided highway continues through Whitbourne and an access is put forward -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: - and put in at the Argentia overpass and that safety is the main concern, not only on behalf of the people in my district, Mr. Speaker, but indeed on behalf of the people of the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the hon. Member for Conception Bay South is asking leave to speak I would be prepared to - if he would like to speak I am prepared to permit that and sit down.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. MATTHEWS: The issue, Mr. Speaker, that has been raised by the petition by the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is one that has been raised a number of times with me. I dealt with it when I was in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and because I am covering off for the minister there now at the moment I will speak to it.
There is no question that the issue has been a little controversial in the area in terms of whether or not we four-lane the highway to the Argentia access road or whether we do it two or three kilometres further east to an area approximating the Old Brigus Road.
I want to point out a couple of things just to be on the record for accuracy purposes. Consultation did occur with the stakeholders in the area. As a matter of fact, before I announced the change to reducing the four-laning back a few kilometres the major stakeholder out there, being the town of Whitbourne, was consulted. I brought them in and I advised them that this may be the case and they were comfortable as a council with that. As a matter of fact, that was the direction they wanted to go in.
So the issue is really a question of whether or not we should be four-laning even as far as the old Brigus Road. There was no requirement for us to four-lane to any particular point on the Trans-Canada Highway. We could have stopped the four-laning in the Roaches Line area. We could have stopped the four-laning at the Salmonier Line, but we decided to go to the Whitbourne area so that we could address some concerns for safety purposes between Route 80-81, which is the route going into Whitbourne from Blaketown.
The decision that I announced, and the determination to stop the four-laning at a point where it will now stop, was taken after careful consideration given to the engineers who work in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and a consultant independently appointed who assured me that this would address the safety concerns at Route 80-81 junction, which is going between Blaketown into Whitbourne.
As far as the allegations that safety is the only issue, I would agree with the hon. member that safety is a predominant issue. Once I was satisfied that safety concerns were being adequately addressed in the new plan, I will tell him quite honestly that I did take into account the 150 jobs that are located in that small business district that I understand would be in jeopardy at best, and probably eliminated at worst, if in fact we went with the four-laning right to that junction.
Simply put, stopping the four-laning two kilometres further east than the original plan is not compromising safety, and it is not compromising a solution to the Route 80-81 problem, which is where the light blinks there by the service station. If the hon. member is suggesting that no consideration should be given to 150 full-time employees, then I would ask him to acknowledge his acceptance -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: - of responsibility for causing 150 jobs to disappear in the economy when there is no need of it.
MR. MANNING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, on a point of order.
MR. MANNING: I would just like to go back to what the minister touched on in regards to his consultations after they decided that they were going to change the plan at the -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order.
MR. MANNING: I am on a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order.
MR. MANNING: I would just like to say that the public consultation process you held was with one gentleman. The people in that area want to know if that is what this government calls public consultation, when you go out and talk to one individual.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to rise on a point of order, but I must do so because the allegation just put forward by the hon. member - and I do not think he is intentionally doing it - to suggest that I consulted with one person is an absolute and total untruth. I had dialogue with the Town of Whitbourne, I had dialogue with other stakeholders in the area, and the conclusion that I came to was after careful consideration of all of the information. I would be happy to name them and to table the information in the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: You get your facts straight.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in support of the petition presented by my colleague. Since being in this House, it is very interesting to sit here and listen to the debate again on the highway in Whitbourne, as to exactly what is going to transpire. It is very interesting to note that two members who are not over there any more, maybe along with somebody else who is still sitting over there, made a trip to Whitbourne and all of a sudden what was discussed in the meeting - the rules changed.
I am led to believe today that the engineers who put forward the proposals in the day-long meeting, at the end of the day, do not now know or did not sanction what was eventually approved for that particular area.
AN HON. MEMBER: How would you know?
MR. FRENCH: How would I know? You would be surprised sometimes. It is very, very simple to note that maybe the same thing that happened to this road happened to the school. I am sure there are members opposite today who certainly know what happened to that. There was an all-day session, there was a plan laid out by engineers, and at the end of the day that was changed.
Two of the members who were involved in that, like I said, are no longer back here. Maybe that is one of the reasons they are not back here anymore; because when we go out to people, the least we should be doing is telling people the truth. That is probably one of the most dangerous intersections along the Trans-Canada Highway. There are people who have died in that particular section quite recently. I am sure the Member for Bellevue, on the other side, knows who I am talking about and may very well be one of them who made the jaunt to Whitbourne.
Mr. Speaker, I am all in favour of keeping jobs but I believe in the consultation process. That is what should happen in he Whitbourne area. When we draw up plans and when we bring in plans, when we do that we should not change them at the eleventh hour on the whim or the snap of a finger of two or three politicians who are no longer here. When the safety issues are put forward, as they have been put forward in Whitbourne, then that is what should be first and foremost in the mind of everybody in this House, the safety issue in that particular area.
The former Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is no longer here. I wonder why. I do not really need to wonder why because I know why he is no longer here.
I think it is time that we went back to he drawing board, that what the people are seeing today in that particular area is approved. Maybe the great predictor, the man who predicts everything, the man who rushed back from Clarenville in 1996, the man who predicted that people would not be in this House in 1999, maybe he should stay out of it this time. Maybe he should stay away from the process, along with his two defeated buddies, and maybe, just maybe, we will bring fear and judgement to the people in that particular area. It is one of the most dangerous intersections on the Trans-Canada Highway, and something certainly has to be done to correct the problem that is out there.
Mr. Speaker, I fully support the petition that is presented today. It is unfortunate that petitions have been offered to other people on the other side and they do not really seem to want to present them. If they do not want to present them, we will certainly continue to present them. If it is involving that intersection, we will present them again. The member opposite certainly knows what I am talking about because they are here from his district as well.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time and I thank the House for its time, but I think we should have another look at the interchange and the changing at Whitbourne.
Thank you.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. the Minister of Finance:
I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2000. By way of interim supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.
sgd.:
A.M. House, Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 2)
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought we had carried (inaudible) the resolution. I heard no naysayers.
I will be brief.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: Mr. Chairman, members have before them Bill 2, which sets forth the general amount of $1,057,878,300 and has included as well the departmental breakouts of the amounts to be allocated to departments and to consolidate essential services in government.
The individual ministers will respond to any particular questions. I would point out that the general budget for the Province is in the amount of $3.4 billion. The amount we are asking for is close to one-third of what we would spend, even though it covers one-quarter of the year. The reason for that is that some of our expenditures are loaded toward the front end of the year, and these include particularly the work that government would contract out in works and services for road work, and the other capital projects. Those tend to occur and be allocated at the beginning of the year. Therefore, our capital expenditures tend to be made more at this time. Of course, our expenditures are therefore not evenly spread throughout the twelve months of the fiscal year.
That being said, we look forward to hearing from the hon. members opposite and indeed some of our colleagues on this side of the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What we have just seen is the typical way in which the Minister of Finance introduces his bills. He gets up and says: I want to spend $1 billion and I am going to let you have all of several minutes to discuss it.
He does not give us any explanations at all for the various headings. We have listed out here again, as I have said on occasion before, just a statement of listing by department and a total amount of money. Unlike the regular budget, of course, you will get details and breakdowns that will come by either the program or by the function or by the division of the ministry involved.
It would help greatly if we were to see some breakdown by the various departments. Then we could know exactly what items we could be drawing more attention to; however, this is the standard practice. It has been a practice since I have been here, with Interim Supply, and I guess it has been the practice in the parliamentary system for a long time and probably will continue for a long time, long after the Member for Exploits and I are no longer members of this Legislature, which will not be real soon, I say to the minister.
Certainly we on this side want to have more details and we invite, in their turn, the various ministers to stand and comment on the programs that they are going to be doing over the next quarter of a year. We anticipate that the Budget will not be passed by this House in its detail; it requires seventy-five hours of discussion. That generally will not happen until probably around June 10, June 12, or June 20, thereabouts, depending on how much time we take up in the Budget debate and the seventy-five hours assigned for the estimates.
This is the beginning of a process, and part of the process that I want to draw attention to today is something that the Minister of Finance announced a little while ago. He had those things called pre-Budget consultations. This was announced a week or so ago, on March 5, and we notice that the booklet is identical to last year's booklet. In fact, the whole process here, the colours did not change. The numbers that were in there, they are last year's Budget numbers. When it comes to a pre-Budget consultation process, the process itself, I should say, is commendable. Holding pre-Budget consultations is the right thing to do. It has its merits. It is a process that is recommended by various levels of government. In fact, I now note that some municipalities are having pre-Budget consultations, and that is commendable; however, we want to say to the House today that if the minister is going to have pre-Budget consultations, he has to make it meaningful.
The minister put out a press release on March 5, a Friday afternoon, saying, if you want to consult with us you can do it through the Internet. You can send us messages by fax. You can send it by e-mail. You could get the document on the Internet immediately and on Monday morning you can pick up copies of this in the various government offices.
On Friday night I got my first telephone call saying, "How do I get a copy of the pre-Budget consultation document?" I had to say to them, "Well, the only place you can get it over the weekend is probably through your Internet service. The person said, "Well that is fine, except (a) I don't have a computer; and (b) I am not hooked up to any kind of an Internet provider at all."
Therefore that person, all that weekend, who wanted to make a presentation, did not have access to the pre-Budget consultation document. I was able to go and facilitate that person getting the document because of my ability to be able access the Internet.
We want to say to the government that pre-Budget consultations are a good thing. I want to say that we commend it. However, if it is going to work there has to be some meaningful dialogue and some meaningful consultations taking place. For such consultations to be effective -
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted maybe to, by way of a question, ask the hon. finance critic if he can explain to us - while he is talking about this pre-Budget consultation process that he supports - how many times the previous Progressive Conservative Administration had pre-Budget consultations. I think the record, over seventeen years of government, will show that it was zero. They did not even know what the concept was. Now they are saying they support it but they do not quite like how it was done. Interesting. I would like to see what the historical record is.
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. the minister has just shown his contempt for the process here. He presents himself as an agitator, as a person who wants to interrupt and to get involved in the process. He has not been in Hansard now for about two-and-a-half pages or so and he just cannot stand it if he is not on every second page. So we can expect him to be jumping up like a jackrabbit, wanting to make sure that on every second page of Hansard his name appears. We can expect him to jump up and make these kinds of nuisance commentaries. It serves no purpose and we on this side have come to expect that level of debate from the hon. the minister and we will just simply ignore it.
What I was saying about the pre-Budget consultations is that - and I say to the minister, if you are going to use the data from last year's Budget then there is not much point in having pre-Budget consultations. For the pre-Budget consultations to be effective, a minimum of three things must prevail.
Number one, the public must believe that they are going to have an impact on the decisions being made by government and reflected in the Budget itself. On that issue, people that I have talked to in this Province were not convinced that their representations on the pre-Budget consultations would have any impact on the final decision-making in this Budget process whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman, the second condition has to be that the financial information in the document has to be up-to-date. We have had millions and millions of dollars spent since last year's Budget, which was presented on March 26, 1998, and certainly there is a lot of update that would be needed. If people are going to have some say in where the government should have its priorities, they need to have access to up-to-date information, not data that is a year old or just about a year old.
Mr. Chairman, then there has to be time for interest groups to have their say. We note that the document was available on the Internet on Friday, March 5, available in hard copy on Monday morning, March 8, and then the hearing started on the tenth. The document was ready on the eighth. The people were told: If you want to have input, you can have it on the tenth and the eleventh - not much time.
First of all, we want to say to the government that in deciding your priorities you went through a charade. It meant nothing because your document data was out of date. You did not allow enough time for people to have any meaningful input whatsoever. Of course, you also had to realize that if someone were to call in and ask for a mail-out copy, they could not do it before Monday morning. If you were going to get things sent out to the various parts of this Province, it is no good to ask for information on Monday morning and expect to have a document back to them and have their presentations ready for Wednesday or Thursday evening of that same week.
This particular document and the process is nothing more than a public relations exercise. It is a charade. It really amounts o nothing. I want to say up front on this Budget exercise that this particular process can be effective; however, we should note that if you are not going to change either the booklet or the style, you could have had this information ready in mid-January. There is no reason why it could not have been ready a lot earlier. Then we could have had some meaningful dialogue.
I want to also say that we want to say to the government there have to be greater measures of accountability in budgeting. If we are going to make decisions on budgets, we have to make sure that the process is more up-to-date than it is.
I note that several provinces - I know that Alberta, as an example - have passed an act called, The Public Accountability Act. That particular act in Alberta requires the Minister of Finance to submit an update on that province's finances at the end of each fiscal quarter. For example, the financial year begins on April 1, so I guess the first quarter would be April, May and June. The Minister of Finance, who is called the Treasurer in Alberta, has to have a public document ready by August 31. The first quarter would be August 31. He must have another document ready by November 30, and another document ready by February 28.
If we had adopted that process in this Province - and it is recommended that we would - we would have more public accountability. Then when we came to discuss things like Interim Supply, we would have a more reasonable knowledge of where the government's priorities were. We would have up-to-date information.
Let me explain to you that if that can be done in Alberta then in can be done in Newfoundland and Labrador. In the Province of Saskatchewan it is a legal requirement that the Minister of Finance present a mid-year financial statement. In Newfoundland and Labrador, do we require a mid-year financial statement? No, we do not. Now, with computerization, it is possible to give a monthly financial statement if need be. That is what computers are about. They are about people having more ready access to information. I want to say to the Minister of Fisheries that it is possible for us to have better information, more up-to-date, Then this whole process of budgeting would be far more reasonable.
If in Alberta it is required under their Accountability Act that they would go and present regular quarterly statements in detail about all of the province's finances, if it is done in Saskatchewan and done in most other provinces, we have to ask the Minister of Finance, why are we not doing it here? Why do we wait until the end of the year and then we present a booklet called Making Choices: The Pre-Budget Public Consultation. The data is one year old and we are saying: Would you look at this and tell us where your priorities are?
If we are going to have a pre-budget consultation process, we have to make it relevant, we have to have up-to-date information. It is totally unnecessary for people to have this kind of data presented to them when, with all of the electronic gages we have now, we can certainly go and have this information presented a lot more rapidly and more accurately than was possible in previous times.
Mr. Chairman, I do believe that my fifteen minutes have expired. I have noticed that. I am asking for leave to continue, for some time.
CHAIR: Order, please!
It being 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, could the member take his seat so I can read the Late Show questions?
MR. H. HODDER: I'm sorry, yes, Mr. Chairman, you will have to read the questions.
CHAIR: Then you are requesting leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
It is 4:00 p.m. and I have to announce the questions for the Late Show.
The first question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Finance re my question regarding impacts of the federal Budget on Newfoundland and Labrador. That is from the Member for Waterford Valley.
The second question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health and Community Services re my question on the Canada Health and Social Transfer. That is the Member for Ferryland.
The third question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health and Community Services re my question on a commitment to open chronic-care beds at Golden Heights Manor. That is from the Member for Bonavista South.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Continuing on with the -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I have ten minutes left, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, because there has been an intervening speaker. Even if it is the Chair himself it still applies.
I want to say, in conclusion to my comments on the pre-Budget consultations, just to finalize my commentary on that, to say that if it is going to be meaningful there have to be certain conditions attached to it. The data has to be up-to-date, there has to be sufficient time, and people have to be convinced there is going to be some recognition of their input. On all three counts the Minister of Finance failed miserably this year. So I assume that the Budget has been written, and there has not been time to have any substantive dialogue with the general public. Therefore we know that the Budget is prepared and is now, in fact, so well prepared that the Minister of Finance today said: I am going to present it three or four days early. In fact it was going to come down on Thursday, March 25, I think it is, and now it is going to come down on Monday, March 22.
Of course, we know that it is coming down on Monday, March 22. Part of it is in connection with certain administrative functions pertaining to the House. I know the Minister of Finance and the government would like to get the Budget down a little earlier because I am sure that facilitates a potential legislative agenda. Therefore we call it what it is. There is an expectation that there is a legislative program that may unfold. I say to the minister that that is one reason. I am sure there may be other reasons as well. There has to be some reason why you moved the Budget from Thursday back to Monday. It is not that Monday is a better day, or Thursday is not a good day, but there has to be some reason.
We want to ask: why would you move the Budget from Thursday back to Monday? There has to be some reason for that. It is not that Monday is washday. Maybe they want to do whatever you do on wash day. I want to say to the minister across from me here that we understand, I suspect, what the agenda is. It might have something to do with the silence that has been imposed on certain phases of collective bargaining or something like that. I am not going to spell it out. The ministry announces what its legislative program is.
It is not for me to announce what the program is, but certainly there is an expectation that there is a connection between certain impasses in collective bargaining or potential impasses in collective bargaining and the fact that the Budget gets moved ahead and what the legislative program might be here. The coming of the interim supply has to be ready by the end of the month and all that kind of thing. There is a lot of things here that are in play.
We want as well to come back to several other matter here, but I do understand that there are some other speakers here who will be speaking to this. So in the interest of making sure that we get as many speakers on this afternoon as possible I will now yield the time to one of my other colleagues. I do believe somebody else is ready on this side.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the hon. member for yielding and giving me some time to say a few words this afternoon concerning, I guess, the Throne Speech and the goings-on of the government across the way. I guess the only part of the Throne Speech that I enjoyed was the end of it. Boy, was I ever glad it was over. Because it was very dry, it lacked imagination, and lacked planning. I say that this government is on a roller coaster that is going to be their last ride. I say that especially to the hon. minister across the way who has a smile from ear to ear, but someday that will come down.
I would like to take the opportunity today to thank the people in the historic District of Placentia & St. Mary's for placing their trust and confidence in me on February 9 to represent them in this hon. House over the next four years.
AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe.
MR. MANNING: Maybe. Yes, I say to the minister, maybe. I would say I would certainly thank the people in that area. I thank all the people involved with me over the past number of weeks. I come here to bring forward the concerns of the people in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's as it relates to many different areas such as the fishery, the Voisey's Bay development in Argentia, many other concerns. Many people in my district are hurting because of the results of the mandate of this government over the past number of years. People have been forced to pack up and leave this Province due to Liberal, and I say in all sincerity, Liberal mismanagement. People have been forced to pack up and move out of this Province. Eleven thousand people left this Province in 1998. Many of them left from the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and the Liberal mismanagement -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in 1989 when your buddy in front of you was the Premier?
MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I say to the hon. minister across the way that he would not want to know the numbers in 1989. Over the past three years - 1996, 1997 and 1998 - we had over 30,000 Newfoundlanders leave this Province. We have very little preparation being put in place to keep these people here and to try to keep these communities alive.
AN HON. MEMBER: The net for 1989 was 1,790 people.
MR. MANNING: Yes, the net for 1989 was 1,790 people.
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MANNING: I say that it is very important that we get the record straight and set the record straight, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy on a point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There was some reference to the issue of out-migration and Liberal mismanagement. I was raising the question privately across the floor but I will try to get it on the public record so that the speaker can respond to it.
I was referencing 1989 when a member of the Legislature, now the Member for Lewisporte, was the premier for some forty-one days, I believe. He indicated to -
AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-four days.
MR. GRIMES: Forty-four days. I am sorry to shortchange you there. The idea is that the number in 1989, net for the year, was 1,091. That is because after the government changed in April, 10,000 people came back.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte, to the point of order.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, obviously first of all it is not a point of order. Secondly, the Minister of Mines and Energy must have overdosed on stunned pills again today, because the government did not get sworn in until some time in May, which was into the next fiscal year anyway. The fact of the matter is that this government has an abysmal record when it comes to the dying, the killing, of rural Newfoundland and Labrador! That is the point, Mr. Chairman!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: I am glad that my -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. MANNING: I say to the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy -
CHAIR: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: I am glad that the Chair recognizes me. It does not seem like the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy or the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture wants to.
I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am glad to be here today to bring forward the concerns of the people of Placentia & St. Mary's as it relates to since 1989 when this government came into power. All I am doing is bringing forward the concerns of out-migration and how important it is, not only to the District of Placentia & St. Mary's but indeed to the Province as a whole.
I had the privilege last year to travel up into the Northern Peninsula and to see the area there that is being struck by out-migration and the downturn in our fishery. To see the government that has an agenda, and a premier that has an agenda that is not concerning Newfoundland and Labrador but it is a very personal agenda in what he plans to do over the next couple of years. I say that we have to put the people first. We have to put the people in priority and we have to put the people in a situation where their concerns, where their issues, are brought forward and are dealt with in an honourable way. That is why the people elected us to this House, to make sure their concerns are brought forward. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to stand here and present, over the next couple of years, the concerns of the people of Placentia & St. Mary's.
I say to the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy, you may fool around with numbers - and he is pretty quick on jumping on his feet to fool around with the numbers - but it is important that we remember the numbers of people out here that are hurting; and the numbers of people in rural Newfoundland and especially in my district that have been hurting for a number of year, whether it is in Placentia with the withdrawal of the Americans from the naval base in Argentia, or Long Harbour where people from my area worked, or it is the downturn in the fishery.
I see that there are some people on that side of the House who have a heart and have spoken out about the concerns of the fishery as it relates to many parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, such as the hon. Member for Port de Grave. Not that I want to give him too much praise but definitely, he does speak out on behalf of the people who are hurting and (inaudible) in need of the fishery. There are some things with the fishery that the hon. Member for Port de Grave does that I don't agree with. I will have time to bring that up later.
I say it is an opportunity for me over the next couple of years to bring forward the concerns and I intend to do that. Even if the hon. Minister for Mines and Energy tries to talk me down, that is not going to work. I just want to serve notice today it is not going to work. I had the opportunity to debate some issues with the minister before while he was the Minister of Education. He did not last there too long after he got up and tried to fool around with the numbers. I would stress that he is not going to last too long in the position he is in today either.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
Before recognizing the next speaker I would like to recognize and welcome to the public gallery today the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Musgravetown, in the District of Terra Nova, Mr. Gary Holloway and Mr. Eugene Holloway.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I hope the Minister of Fisheries listens. He was a very busy man in the last election. He is the only man in this House who ran in three separate districts. Now he only had luck in one, mind you, but he ran out of two other districts, or he got run out of two other districts. He ran in but he very quickly ran out. He ran out of Harbour Main-Whitbourne in a flash, and he ran out of Ferryland in a flash. He ran in, wasn't in there very long, told some stories and then got out in a hurry. He decided he should go back and concentrate in his own area, so he went back and eventually concentrated in his own area. He was successful, and I congratulate him on being successful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: He is probably, as my colleague said, and I certainly do not want to make his head swell, but he is one of the people who sits on that side that once in a while makes some semblance of sense as it relates to the fishery in our Province, and who makes some semblance of things as it relates to the seals. Of course, I cannot disagree with him. They only people that I really have to agree with him on are the people who are out and protesting the seal fishery. I believe the people who contribute money to these fools should be strung up by the neck, and I am sure the minister will agree with that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about my own district. I was very fortunate. I ran and I was very successful. Now, if I had listened to the Member for Bellevue I would not have run. I hope he was more successful on his recent holiday than he was at his predictions; because his prediction to my colleagues was that this member here would never come back to this place, would never again sit in this seat, but I increased my numbers by five times what my majority was in 1996.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: One of his colleagues, who was another predictor, who ran into another one of my colleagues at a hockey game, said that the Liberal Party had done all of their survey. There were ten of us here then - our numbers have grown certainly - on this side of the House. There were two of us who were not coming back, my colleague from St. John's West and myself.
Well, my colleague from St. John's West is back here, and I am back here myself, but I look across and I don't see the predictor. He is gone; he did not make it. My colleague for Lewisporte took care of him. So I say to the Member for Bellevue, be careful, be very careful on your predictions.
I had great joy in my district every day to see the Premier's bus roll up the road, down the road, every day past my headquarters. I do not know what it was for, and I do know who they were trying to impress. I do not know if they paid for the bus by the mileage so that they could give the company a few more bucks.
AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't a blue one was it?
MR. FRENCH: No, no, it was a red one.
The only person on the red one was the driver. Nobody else would drive down every day -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: Maybe you should have gotten a lift on her.
He was down the road every day, and sometime late in the afternoon he would ride her back up again past my headquarters.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: No, I won't say that.
I am glad to be here today. There certainly are a lot of issues in my district that need to be addressed, that have to be addressed. One of our major concerns, of course, outside of water and sewer, is education. There are two schools slated in my district to close. I wrote a letter to the Avalon East School Board yesterday. I sent a copy to the Minister of Education and to the Premier. I hope, when the Minister of Education gets the letter, she will take some time to read it and pay heed to it as to what I have asked the Avalon East School Board to do.
I believe in my district, and in the district of the Member for Topsail, that the Avalon East School Board has jumped, and jumped way too fast and way too quickly. I do not think a lot of thought, a lot of time, or a lot of effort has gone into what they are planning on doing. If there is no school built in the Topsail district, or in the Paradise area of that district, then at the end of the day education reform from the Topsail District and the District of Conception Bay South will be nothing short of chaos.
We are taking children out of schools. They live close enough to the school that they could probably beat every window in the school out with rocks. Yet, we are going to move them seven, eight, nine, or ten kilometres away. It makes absolutely no sense. I voted for education reform when I went to the poll to vote. I voted for education reform in this House, as dictated by my constituents, and I stand by that today.
I have to say to the Avalon East School Board that I believe it is time that you put on the brakes, that you stop doing what you are doing. You are disrupting the lives of children. While I do not today have anybody in school, hopefully over the next several years I will. I think, when we are dealing with children, we should always remember that. We now have in my District of Conception Bay South, where we are going to send children all over creation and I think that is wrong.
There has to be a new school built, and it has to be built in the Topsail District in the Paradise area. I am sure the Member for Topsail will agree with that. Him and I have certainly had a conversation concerning it. It has to be built sooner than later. The school has to be built before we stop taking children and moving them around. Before this school board starts to rejig figures, I think that they should sit and listen to the parents who have children in these areas going to school. It is time that they stood and listened to the people, and if we have to wait a year-and-a-half or two years then I have suggested to the Avalon East School Board that we would wait two years, or we wait whatever time it takes before we try and rejig the figures in my District of Conception Bay South, before we close two schools in my district.
I am not saying that somewhere down the road these schools should not be closed, but until we have all the ducks in a row and we know exactly where we are going, I do not think the time is now to be out closing our schools. As I said, we are going to start shifting children all over creation in my district.
I want to thank the people of my district for giving me the support that they did. I went from a majority of 423 in 1996 to some 2,100. I feel quite honoured by that, quite honoured that they sent me back to this House to represent them, to be their voice, to speak in this House. I am honoured that they chose me, and I am honoured to do that for them. While I sit here I will continue to speak out on behalf of the people of my district.
Another major concern outside of the education is the water and sewer. My opponent in the last election came out and announced that the infrastructure was all approved, that the government had made its decision. The government had made its decision only, of course, that while they announced that they would have such a program, the amount of money going into that project or the amount of funding that would be approved for such a project was an absolute and teetotal lie, because it has not been done. The program itself that will come eventually down the road is true. I have met with the minister already and I have discussed it with the minister, but in regards to actual amounts, that has not been decided. The minister tells me it will not be decided until his colleagues in Cabinet meet on it, discuss it, and at the end of the day come up with a final figure.
My opponent in the last election went to one of the municipalities in my area looking for a letter which he could distribute to every constituent in my district, saying: Here is the amount of money that we have. Here is what we are going to get.
It was a complete and absolute falsehood. It was a lie. It was a deliberate lie, as far as I am concerned, and I guess the people of my district realize that when announcements like that come, the least we can do is tell the people the truth.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) one of the star candidates, right?
MR. FRENCH: Yes, one of their star candidates, one of their experts. Of course, an expert is a person who knows more and more about less and less.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to what is going to transpire on Monday.
AN HON. MEMBER: Are you finished yet?
MR. FRENCH: I am not finished with you yet. I am going to spend the rest of this session, every once in awhile, putting a jab into you; because the people in Whitbourne are still looking for you. The council in Whitbourne are still looking for you.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: Well, they elected the right fellow. They got rid of your colleague.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: That is right, which they did not have in 1996. They do have a member.
Mr. Chairman, in my district, I have been in homes where I have seen a pair white socks that are now yellow - close to brown, I guess - because of the water. The water is unfit to drink in that area.
It is time, in my district, that the municipalities, both in Conception Bay South and Holyrood, receive the proper funding so that the much-needed infrastructure work can be done. I certainly intend to, over the next little while, dwell on that in this House during this session. It is a need in my area that has to be addressed very seriously, because at the end of the day, without it, I fear something very serious will happen and some child will become very ill because of water or because of sewage problems in the area.
When you have parents who call you and say: The sewer is not close to my house. Our sewage is blocked and we do not have the money to fix it. We have two or three children living in this house. What can we do? What should we do? At the end of the day, that is very sad.
Since 1996 I have harped on the infrastructure program.
AN HON. MEMBER: It is not 4:30 p.m. yet.
MR. FRENCH: I will do it at 4:30 p.m., I say to the member.
Again, we must have and we have to get -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: Well, if you had been listening, I have been saying it since I stood up. Your problem is not hearing; it is listening. I think you should be sitting and listening. You should give up your predictions. I hope you had more luck on your vacation, in your predictions of what you were going to do on your vacation, than you did on some people's return to this hon. House. I hope you were luckier in those predictions than you were in that one.
AN HON. MEMBER: I predicted that (inaudible) have a heart attack.
MR. FRENCH: No, you would not want to go through that again, and I hope you do not go through that again, by the way.
Mr. Chairman, to go back to the water and sewage issue, it is and remains today one of the biggest issues in my district. Roads in my district remain a very big and very serious issue. It has to be addressed. It needs to be addressed before something very serious takes place in my part of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I can only urge that the minister bring his proposal to Cabinet as quickly as possible and that we set a certain amount of money into a fund for infrastructure, something based along the lines of the last one the federal government had. Again, if the Province is going to do it, maybe if we can talk Ottawa into - with some of their surplus money - as well as coming in with an infrastructure program, then I think the need arises.
I would like to say to the Minister of Environment today that, since the closure of the dump in Conception Bay South, the rats are having quite a time running the Foxtrap Access Road and out through Kelligrews and Foxtrap.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FRENCH: I would now move to adjourn the debate, Mr. Chairman.
MR. EFFORD: I move 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): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: It being 4:30 p.m, Thursday, we move into our Debate on the Adjournment.
Debate on the Adjournment
[Late Show]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to ask the Minister of Finance if he would want to give more detail to the questions I was asking earlier today in Question Period.
During the night that the federal Budget came down, we were all here in the building. The Minister of Finance was in his office and we were in ours. Afterwards, the minister spoke to the media, and so did the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, and our caucus (inaudible) was there with him.
That evening the minister, in reflecting on the federal Budget, said he was disappointed. It was laughable he said. He gave the impression the federal Budget was insulting to Newfoundland, it was an insensitive document. He said that it made him angry. He said it meant taking money from the poor provinces and giving it to the rich. He said he was not consulted. It was news to him to have had changes to the formula of calculating the CHST. He said that he was blindsided by the federal Minister of Finance. Then, a few days later, after there had been some consultations with the Premier in Western Newfoundland, and meetings had been held between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier, I guess the Prime Minister reminded the Premier of statements that he - the now Premier - had made when he was the MP for Humber St. Barbe and Baie Verte, in which the Prime Minister of Canada is said to have told the Premier of this Province that the changes to the way the formula was calculated had been Liberal federal party policy for some time. In fact, it was well known that they were moving to this method of calculation while he was a member of the federal Cabinet.
Today, the Minister of Finance did not say that he still stands by his words of February 16 and February 17. In fact, we ask him today to clarify his position. Was the federal Budget a hurtful document to Newfoundland and Labrador? Should we take great credence in the commentary made in the local paper by our federal minister, the hon. Fred Mifflin, and his analysis of the impact of the federal Budget? Or should we be following what our Minister of Finance said on February 16 and February 17?
The minister was asked today: What is the net effect of the federal Budget? Will it hurt Newfoundland and Labrador, as he said on February 16 and February 17, or is its impact going to be a lot more favourable now that he has been consulted with by the Prime Minister and by the Premier?
Mr. Speaker, we asked these questions today because we felt when the Premier said that the issue was closed, maybe the editorial in The Telegram of March 3 had it right. I am quoting the commentary, the last paragraph where it says, "But Tobin's new found silence does not eliminate the problem he accurately pointed out when the budget was brought down. He must decide which hat he wants to wear right now - Provincial Premier or aspiring Prime Minister."
We wanted today to seek clarification on this matter, and want to ask the Minister of Finance as to whether or not the new federal Budget and its impacts is going to mean more cuts to our educational system, more troubles in our health care, more troubles in our schools, and whether the money is going to be available for us not just this year but available for us in the years to come.
PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the member be factually correct in his statements when he makes reference to my own participation in the public life of Newfoundland.
The member rhetorically asked whether I wanted to be Premier of the Province or, I think, aspiring Prime Minister is what he said. I want to let him know that notwithstanding the reaction and the disappointment of my good friend, the Member for Port de Grave, that I want to be Premier, not only for this term but for the term after, and the term after that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I finally met a member of the House who believes everything he reads in the newspaper. I am delighted that he lives in a town where they do in fact have a newspaper these days. Just let me say that before I enter into a dialogue with the hon. member about whether the federal government's Budget was harmful or good for the Province, I might ask him in reflecting on the question the Premier raised: Is 40 per cent appreciatively better than 39 per cent, and what does that indicate for the hon. member's leader? I guess the last time the leader of that party got 39 per cent it was rather harmful for the member, and indeed, did not improve the prospects of the party in the subsequent election when they got 40 per cent. I do not know if members opposite are caucusing on whether or not that is sufficient improvement so as to secure the future of the leader for any particular period of time.
Nevertheless, the hon. member raises again at some length the question - I am going to save something I want to share with the hon. member on another occasion. I do want to say that the federal government's policy in revising the CHST was not one we were happy with, and we expressed it strongly at the time. My colleague who is not here expressed herself strongly at the time, as did the Premier. It was something that was unexpected, as we explained earlier in question period, and it was something we were not happy about, and we expressed ourselves in very strong terms.
As I said at the time, had it been done under the old method we would have netted $41 million, but we knew that the new money coming would be distributed on a per capita formula, which reduced the new amount of $41 million down to $35 million. That we knew. The Deputy Minister of Finance told me the day of the federal Budget that the money that was coming, the new money, would not be distributed on that basis but would be distributed not on a historic basis rather but on the basis of per capita. We knew that the $41 million we would have gotten under the old formula would only be $35 million.
What we did not know was that the existing $280 million which we had been receiving this year under the CHST would for next year be redistributed on a per capita basis. That $280 million was reduced consequently by $17 million, which meant that our net under the CHST, instead of being $41 million, was in fact, $17 million or $18 million.
That was unfortunate, but having said that, the equalization figures which I will share with the hon. member were up considerably. In fact, I am doing a draft here, and I think the hon. member would be delighted to know (inaudible) money just how much it was, and hopefully that will continue. Our concern was that it was because they were different issues they should be addressed as such. Notwithstanding the fact that equalization this year was favourable, it could in other years be unfavourable. We wanted to place, and put the federal government on notice, that in deserting what has been a traditional position put forward by this Province to maintain the CHST distribution in the historic mandate that it always had, that they were replacing a level of certainty we had hoped to keep on that particular part of our revenues.
In summary, the federal Budget was generally good for the Province. We have a lot more money as a consequence, but the CHST which was part of that Budget was not. On balance we are pleased with it. Having vented at the time, having expressed ourselves in strong terms - which as you know is not my want -, we nevertheless felt that in the interests of the Province one had to be constructive in dialogue. We do not have the liberty that the hon. members opposite take, although it is not the inclination of my critic. Fortunately, we are always are very constructive in these matters. Life has to go on, and although it was not happy for us we were delighted with the amount of equalization, and please God it will continue into the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I asked questions to the Minister of Health and Community Services. They are pretty simple and straightforward questions. I asked her did she stand by her statement, with reference to the federal Budget, where she said that: the federal Budget has created a two-tiered health care system and that is not good enough.
I asked her does she agree with the Premier that it is a closed one for this government. She indicated in answer to my first question that she agrees with the Premier.
In the second question I asked her: Does she agree the issue was closed and the shift to per capita transfers threatens Newfoundland and Labrador? It is not quite closed. So I gave the minister an opportunity today to let me know if it is a closed issue or if it is not a closed issue. We did not find out today, earlier in question period, and certainly we hoped to find out today. Because during the election campaign the Minister of Health and Community Services was front and centre on all health issues.
I made a comment in an interview about a week ago to The Telegram, and I am glad they carried my statement in the editorial today. In an interview I said: Where is the Minister of Health? She was front and centre every day in the campaign and the election is over. We cannot find out where she is on health at all. We do not hear from her, we hear from Treasury Board. I said that is a signal there is going to be a cold and callous response to nurses and so on here. I would like to hear from the minister basically if she agrees with her answer to the first question or the second, because she answered them both in different ways and you have to be consistent. If you are going to agree, you have to agree. You cannot talk on one side of your mouth and three minutes later talk out of the other side of your mouth. Because basically -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Welcome back, I say to the member. The weather I am sure did him good.
I say to the minister, and to the Premier too, we have had people from all over this Province today, the health care system - the problem is not necessarily a shortage of dollars. The system, the way it is operated and administered today, I can tell you, is a grossly inefficient system. All that is going to happen is when you put another $30 million, $40 million or $60 million into it, what is going to happen is that all the people are going to get out and tug to get their share of that extra money, all the different interests within health care, without fixing the problem that is chewing up all that money, and that is the grossly structured and inefficiently operating health care boards here.
They are grossly inefficient. There is no accountability mechanisms in place. We do not have a report card. The federal minister called for a report card on health care. Where is it now? He has forgotten about that now.
What we need in this Province is a report card on accountability in health care because there is tremendous waste. Whoever heard tell of these positions we never heard of before? They hired a bed utilization coordinator. I mean, what is a bed utilization coordinator? A person now who has to try to find out who is the sickest to put in the bed after they closed eighty beds. We should not have all those positions there. We should not need those positions, I say to the minister. There are positions advertised now - I cannot find, or how (inaudible) in a dictionary. I had to ask: What is the job description, and whoever came up with it?
All we knew in our health care system was you had front-line nurses, you have other health care professionals. If you have these people you don't need - they have two PR people in there now trying to put the right spin on things. They did not have anybody before. They did not have these PR people in health care. You did not have all these new positions out there trying to justify what we are doing.
If you were doing what is needed and using the dollars where they are supposed to be spent - and this new program based management, it is a farce, it is not working. Because the professionals are spending 30 per cent to 40 per cent of their day in meetings consulting around when they could be spending their time out providing the care that people need. It is not working and you have to fix it. It is eating up dollars there. I hope the minister is going to stand in her place today and tell us what she is going to do to fix these problems. At least if she is going to tell us something don't go and hide when the election is over. Be consistent in what she is going to tell us here and do something about it. Because I can tell you that $100 million will not fix health care in this Province under the way it is structured and the way we have allowed it to get out of control in the last several years.
The acting Minister of Health and Community Services, or somebody, stand up and tell us there. If they want to set down how it should be done, I would be delighted any time to give some advice on what we need to do in health care. I have been giving it all the time in the House and otherwise. I think you should pay heed. I have said it before. A year after I proposed something to the former minister he stood in the House and read a statement that said exactly what I said a year earlier.
Let's start working and moving a bit earlier, get the problem fixed. It would be a lot better for government too. I would have nothing to complain about, and I would be really delighted.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's specific question, I want to say that the Minister of Health agrees with the Premier and the Premier agrees with the Minister of Health. There it is, as clear as clear could be.
On the broader range of comments that the Opposition House Leader made with respect to the quality of the health care system, I want to say that we spent almost all of the last three years witnessing a debate, certainly over the last two years, in this House with the Opposition House Leader on one side and the Minister of Health on the other side. For most of the last two years there was an almost daily debate that went on about the quality of the health care system.
That debate was witnessed by thousands of people. Tens of thousands of people came into the gallery to listen to the questions of the member who just spoke and listen to the answers of the Minister of Health. Tens of thousands more, all over the Province, along the Coast of Labrador, in the interior of Labrador and Labrador West, on the Great Northern Peninsula, down through the West Coast, along the southwest corner of the Province, right across the South Coast, up through Central, into Eastern Newfoundland, all through the Avalon Peninsula, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have waited with baited breath, night in and night out, to hear the comments of the member who just spoke and to hear the answers of the Minister of Health.
Having witnessed this debate in a breathless fashion, having listened carefully, having hung with anxiety onto every word uttered and responded to by the Minister of Health, after watching this grand debate, one which defines the very purpose of the Legislature and symbolizes the excellence of public discourse, the people cast a judgement and the Minister of Health won.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to correct the Premier there in a misstatement. The Premier passed a judgement in Ferryland and he did not win.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Premier there were not a lot of votes in Bonavista South for the Minister of Health or for the gentlemen who ran against me who looked after or chaired the health care board there.
The Premier went to Bonavista South and again put his hand on somebody's shoulder and said to them - his words were, and I will repeat them: Elect this man here and we will look after your health care.
Those were his words. So those words that you hear echoed about the Premier putting his hands on people's shoulders, some of them are true, I say.
I asked the Minister of Health a question here today regarding a commitment to open ten long-term care beds in the Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista. Back in 1993-1994, $1.4 million was spent to refurbished the Golden Heights Manor. I suppose a study was done at that time to show there was a need there, and I guess the need was to create some extra long-term care beds. There were ten long-term care beds open, the rooms were done, the furniture was put in the rooms, and the doors were closed. That was back in 1994.
Since that particular time, I have been standing here year after year asking the government of the day to look at the need that is in this particular area, and look at opening if not all of the ten beds then maybe two. The minister continues to say: Mr. Fitzgerald, the waiting list is not long enough.
Mr. Speaker, if you get a call from somebody who wants to get their mother or their father -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if you get a call from somebody who is saying that they need to get their mother or their grandmother or their father into this senior citizens home, and they cannot get them in because the waiting list is not long enough, you can imagine the reply that you get on the other end of the phone.
My argument has been that if there is one person who needs to get in to that senior citizens home and the need is there to open one bed, then let us open one bed. If they need is there to open two, let us open two beds.
The union membership have come forward, visited with the minister, and have said to her: Minister, if you will look at the need that is on the Bonavista Peninsula and open one or two or four beds, whatever is needed, then we will do our part. We are not going to come and lay a grievance because there should be x number of people there today because that bed is open. We will play the game. We will be responsible. Open the beds that are needed and we will help you in order for you to meet your budget. How much fairer can you be?
If two months down the road, or two weeks down the road, there is a need to close those beds again, then there will be no argument; close them. We do not live in a society today whereby we can have beds open, staff in working, and accept that as the status quo. That is not what they are asking. They are asking that their beds be open on a need basis, and if there is no need there then there is no problem with having them lie vacant again. That is all they are asking. That is why I raised the issue here in the House today, and why I will continue to raise it.
Last year we saw a group of people who were frustrated by the old procedure, by hearing what had happened with the cutbacks in health care, seeing the need to have those beds opened. They saw fit to go out and hold a demonstration. They were on - it was not a picket line, it was a protest line. They stood on the streets of Bonavista for well in excess of 200 days. They were there from something like May or June up until Christmas Day, even after Christmas Day. I know they were on the line Christmas Day, saying to government: Listen to our plea. What it will take to resolve this situation is a commitment to open whatever beds are needed in order to fill the need. But the needs have gone unnoticed; the needs have gone unattended. I do not think that is treating the people in this area -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - in a way they should be treated, or attending to the needs and the commitments that this government says it brings as a ruling party in this Province today.
Mr. Speaker, ever though the minister is not in her seat right now -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - I would hope that at least Cabinet members, and members of the Opposition, would listen to the plea. It is a serious plea. I bring it forward today and I will continue to bring it forward until somebody listens.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as the minister indicated quite accurately in her comments to the question earlier today, the decisions that are made with respect to the utilization of spaces in the health care system are decisions that are made within the auspices and under the auspices of the health care boards.
What she pointed out at that time was that there are a number of factors that are taken into consideration in determining the utilization of space. It is based on need. It is also based on effectiveness and efficiency. It is based on the individual circumstances that are being looked at. A number of factors are taken into consideration.
I believe what the minister said in her answer to the question earlier today was that this would continue to be considered and this is the way in which these decisions are made, and that she would continue to support decisions being made in this manner.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.