QUESTION PERIOD AT THE LEGISLATURE!!!!

ORAL QUESTIONS 5 QUESTIONS ORALES
December 15, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 15 décembre 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\07 2005-12-15 BL\07 2005-12-15 BL.wpd 1/10

Job Creation

Mr. S. Graham: The Premier has often cited Donald Savoie as the authority on government administration and economic development. As we all know, Mr. Savoie is the Canada research Chair in public administration and governance at the Université de Moncton. I am very intrigued by his comments on Bernard Lord’s complete failure to pursue major job opportunities for New Brunswick. In fact, a December 14 Times & Transcript article states: The Conservative government, Savoie said, must admit it failed on the RIM dossier.

The quote reads:

“I think New Brunswick was asleep at the switch and Lord is trying to rationalize his failure. It doesn’t wash with me and I don’t think it will wash with New Brunswick. A bit harsh, but frankly there is no excuse for this. You can spin it, you can rationalize it, but there is no excuse for being asleep at the switch.”

My question to the Premier this afternoon is this: Why were you asleep at the switch?

Hon. Mr. Lord: This is name-calling week this week on the part of the opposition. First of all, let’s get the facts straight. When the Leader of the Opposition says that I quote Donald Savoie as an expert, I would like him to bring the quotes to this House. He says I do this often.

Bring the quotes to this House. I do know that Daniel Savoie is a good friend of former Premier McKenna, one who writes books about Mr. McKenna, and he does not hide his political affiliations. I respect that.

Let’s talk about jobs. Donald Savoie also wrote about Mr. McKenna and the Liberals in the 1990s, saying that nothing had really changed. The member for Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak wants to bring up numbers of jobs. Let’s talk about who was asleep at the switch. The average unemployment rate for New Brunswick in 1995 was 11.5%. The average unemployment rate for 2005 is 9.4%.

Mr. S. Graham: Again, a nerve must have been touched with our Premier this afternoon, because it is very interesting to see him stand up and ask when he has quoted Donald Savoie, and then he does it in his own response to this Chamber. We all recall that many times, the Premier did, indeed, do that in this Chamber.

I am also very concerned about the fact that a Business New Brunswick representative is quoted as saying that we do not have centres of that size here in New Brunswick, because “if a really large centre comes in to an area with well-paying jobs and demanding a certain skill level, it can sometimes pull the workers away.” The representative said that there is a fear, and the term is “cannibalization of the workforce”.

Mr. Premier, the RIM investment in New Brunswick would have meant over 250 jobs a year over a five-year period, totaling 1 250 jobs. My question is this: Why is the message that your government wants to give the rest of the country and the rest of the world that New Brunswick is not open for business and that we cannot entertain jobs of that magnitude and size here?

Hon. Mr. Lord: That is not the message. That is the message that the Liberals want to send to the rest of the world today. That is not the message. In fact, the Liberals have accused me, at times, of traveling outside New Brunswick to promote New Brunswick and said I should be here. When I am outside New Brunswick, I promote the fact that we have good infrastructure in New Brunswick, that we have excellent people, lower taxes, and great public services in the province. Those are the
strengths of New Brunswick, and one of those strengths is creating a record number of jobs in New Brunswick. There are 28 000 more jobs in New Brunswick this year than there were when we were elected in 1999.

The member for Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak can twist the numbers as much as he wants. Let’s take a look. In 1996, the unemployment rate average was 11.6%; in 1998, it was 12.7%; and in 2005, it was 9.4%.

Mr. S. Graham: Very clearly, the Premier has to face the fact that he is being outhustled by Premier John Hamm, who is retiring. What kind of message does that send to the people of New Brunswick?

What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world, when we have Business New Brunswick employees saying that New Brunswick cannot sustain a new industry of 250 jobs a year, which pay over $60 000 per year? That is the wrong message, and it is the message coming from this government. It is not the message coming from anyone else. It requires leadership. What we are saying today is this: Why are you asleep at the leadership switch?

Hon. Mr. Lord: I know that the Leader of the Opposition is being told by his advisors to just be negative on me. They can do that, but the facts are that there are more jobs under this government than there were under any other government in the history of New Brunswick. The people who are being outhustled are the Liberals. This Progressive Conservative government is doing a better job at creating jobs for New Brunswickers than the previous Liberal government did.

That is who is being outhustled, and that is why the members opposite do not like the facts.

Mr. S. Graham: Another file where this government was asleep at the switch was the Bathurst file, with the closure of Smurfit-Stone. This government sat idly by when we recommended for a number of months to move progressively in meeting with the industry stakeholders to develop a plan of action. There are hundreds of New Brunswick families in that region of the province who do not have a job during the Christmas season. There has been no indication from this government on
whether there will be a successful purchaser of that operation.

This is not a laughing matter, Mr. Minister of Finance. No, it is not.
(Interjection.)

Mr. S. Graham: We are very serious on this side of the Chamber today. My question to the Premier is this: Can you inform the House today of the status of this operation, and what potential investors are lining up to put these people back to work?
Hon. Mr. Lord: The Leader of the Opposition, every once in a while, will stand up and say: We told this government this or that. Let’s look at the record. When this government took action to help large industries, including these paper mills, the Liberals voted against it. They did not vote for it. They voted against it, because they said we were helping big business. They think that when we help big
business, that is somehow wrong. We heard some of the people in Saint John say during the byelection: Oh, no. Don’t help the Tories. They help big business.
Let’s just say that there are more jobs today in New Brunswick, and we are going to continue to create more jobs. We know that there are some challenges in some areas. I am very concerned about the families in Bathurst. We are looking for buyers. The status is currently that the mill is closed, and we are looking to identify buyers who want to operate this mill in Bathurst.

Mr. S. Graham: People in that region of the province today would have liked some clarity on this issue. They would have liked to hear how many potential investors have stepped forward. They also need to know what the status is on the winterization of the mill, because this is a very important asset. The only way we are going to be able to secure the asset is to make sure that it is in an operational capacity when it is sold. My question to the Premier today is this: Can you update us on
the winterization of the mill?

Hon. Mr. Lord: We certainly want to provide clarity, but if the Leader of the Opposition wants to suggest that there is a buyer just waiting to knock at the door, that is not the case. That would be misleading the people of Bathurst. The Leader of the Opposition sometimes may think that misleading is better than telling the truth. We have seen that time and time again. We believe in the truth, and we believe in being upfront and truthful with the people of New Brunswick.

We are in discussions. We do not own this mill. There is a plan being worked out to winterize the mill, but this is not our mill. This is not our asset. It does not belong to the province of New Brunswick.

Mr. S. Graham: The response of the Premier this afternoon is what concerns us the most. He is saying that there is no one knocking at the government’s door to purchase the mill. That is the problem. It is this government that should be out knocking on industry’s door to purchase this mill.

That is the same attitude they had with Research in Motion. That is the same attitude that Donald Savoie had. It exists today. Why are you continuing to be asleep at the switch?

Hon. Mr. Lord: That is not what I said. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to suggest that there is someone knocking on the door, that is not the case. We are knocking on doors. We are talking to people.

These are the same people who accused me of not doing the right thing when we brought Molson to New Brunswick. I heard it all time and time again in Saint John, when we were campaigning there. I know the member for Moncton North wants to say that he is the one representing Moncton, but he is against the fact that our government brought Molson to Moncton. Is it working for the people of Moncton if we are against development?

The fact is, this is small politics being played by the opposition. The facts are that there are more jobs in New Brunswick, the unemployment rate is lower, the participation rate is higher, wages are going up, and we are going to continue on that track. We are going to continue to create more jobs in this province.

Senior Citizens

Mr. McGinley: My question today is for the Minister of Family and Community Services. I, along with many senior citizens in this province, was offended by comments I read in an article in the Telegraph-Journal on Monday, December 12. In that article, the minister was quoted as saying that everybody would like to drive a Cadillac and take a vacation on the Riviera every year, but you have to live within your means.

The minister has enough experience in the Department of Family and Community Services to realize that few seniors who are assessed by her department have ever owned a Cadillac or even dreamt of a holiday in the Riviera. Their concern when they are being admitted to a nursing home is to have enough money left to ensure that a spouse at home will not have to choose between food and paying for medication.

It is more with sadness than with anger that I am asking the minister to withdraw the comments that she made to the media this week.

Hon. Mrs. MacAlpine-Stiles: I will be more than happy to address the member opposite with regard to my comments. The comments to which he refers were made during an interview. The interviewer was asking about the $60 million which was the amount that government was being asked to put into the seniors program in New Brunswick. The question was why we were not doing that. The comments were taken out of context, because what I said was that in New Brunswick, the government runs as a household runs. Yes, we are doing what we need to do. We are addressing the
needs of seniors in the province with the resources that we have available.
What I said was that it would be wonderful, as everybody in a household knows, to drive a fancier car, but you drive what you can afford. It would be wonderful to take a vacation, but you do what you can afford. That was what I said, and I stand by those comments. The government is like a household. You operate with the funding you have. To say that I made those comments is ridiculous. That was not what I said. It was completely out of context.

Mr. McGinley: I am reading from a news printout. The minister is quoted as saying “Everybody would like carte blanche, but government is like a household. You might like to drive a Cadillac and take a vacation (on) the Riviera every year, but you have to live within your means.” That remark is offensive to me, and it is offensive to other senior citizens in this province. I am asking the
minister: Would it not be better to simply withdraw the offensive remark and restore the confidence that the people of this province, the seniors, should have in their minister?

Hon. Mrs. M Alpine-Stiles: If I had done anything ac to offend the seniors of this province, I would be more than happy to withdraw the comment. It was not against seniors. It was not against nursing homes. It was not against the seniors program in the province. What I said was that government has a budget and that government has to live within its budget, as a household does. That is the truth, and that is a fact. It was not a slur against seniors. I was raised by a senior. I cared for an incontinent mother on my own for two years. I know all about looking after seniors. I probably have more sympathy for seniors than anyone in this Legislature. The comment was not a slight against seniors.

It was a fact.

Government has a project to do. It has a budget to work under. It puts the allocations to the best use possible. That is what we have done. We have been playing catch-up with nursing homes, for example, for the past 12 years. We are putting in $120 million. That is not a slight against anyone.

Industrie forestière

M. Paulin : Ma question est pour le ministre des Ressources naturelles. Il y a plusieurs scieries au Nouveau-Brunswick qui contribuent beaucoup à l’économie locale en créant des emplois.

Le printemps dernier, j’ai posé la question au ministre et ces scieries ne sont pas titulaires de permis ou de sous-permis de votre ministère. Le ministère a-t-il une liste complète des scieries qui sont en activité au Nouveau-Brunswick?

Hon. Mr. Ashfield: Yes, I can provide that.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Paulin: Over 700 000 m3 of wood was exported outside this province. To a question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier answered this. It is on the record. “Before every order was approved, this wood was offered to anyone in New Brunswick who wanted it, and no one accepted it. That is why it was allowed to be exported.” I have three mills in my riding alone, and there are many others across this province that were not approached and that could have used that
wood. The people of New Brunswick want the truth. They want action, and they want to keep those jobs in New Brunswick, not have them shipped outside the province.

Hon. Mr. Ashfield: Truth is something that we tell on this side of the House, unlike the other side of the House, which appears to do that on a somewhat irregular basis. The 700 000 m3 of fibre that was exported from this province was low-grade softwood and low-grade pulpwood. There were no markets for it in this province. It was very clear. As a result, unless we had moved that out of the province, we would have jammed up every sawmill in the province, putting more people out of work. Get your facts straight.

Mr. Paulin: This government’s vision for the future is limited to what it sees in its rearview mirror.

There was a mill in Kedgwick that would have used that four-foot wood. It was not approached. We lost job opportunities. When you say that everyone was contacted, it is not factual. Why have these mills not been contacted to save jobs in rural New Brunswick?

Hon. Mr. Ashfield: As I said, this was low-grade pulpwood. There were no markets for this fibre in the province. Unlike the Liberals . . . Just look at the comments from an incumbent MP in Miramichi, who, just this past weekend, suggested that those at the UPM mill should take their axes and go back to Finland. I assure you, that is not the position of this province. We want people to work in this province. What that MP was suggesting was that we shut down more mills, that we shut down our licensees, our sublicensees, contractors, and private woodlot owners. Is that your position on the other side of the House?

Private Educational Institutions

Mr. MacIntyre: My question is for the Minister of Training and Employment Development. The RCMP has announced that a school known as CertifyOnLine.com has been charged with fraud, including a charge for defrauding the government through the student loan system. This school was charged with preying on vulnerable people by offering computers and cash to enroll in worthless and expensive training courses. If the school had access to student loans, then it had to be approved
by the Minister of Training and Employment Development under the Adult Education and Training Act. Without commenting on the case before the courts, can the minister confirm today that approval was given to this school and that it has now been rescinded?

Hon. Mrs. Dubé: I will take that question. As the member of the opposition just mentioned, the situation is in court right now, so I am not able to comment. However, I have to say that, in a general sense, when we have companies in New Brunswick with some irregularities, we take action to protect the children and to protect the students. This is what we have been doing, and, certainly, I
am not able to comment even further at this point.

Mr. MacIntyre: I did not ask you to comment on the court case. The question was very specific:

Can the minister confirm that the approval that was given to the school has now been rescinded?

This seems to be a serious problem. A so-called school was given access to public student loans and was able to trumpet that it was approved by the government. Is this minister satisfied that all the necessary steps were taken by the department before this school was approved? Can you comment on that before the courts?

L’hon. Mme Dubé : Pour répondre à la question du député d’en face, les compagnies peuvent faire affaire au Nouveau-Brunswick. Les étudiants peuvent s’enregistrer au Nouveau-Brunswick pour faire affaire. Nous avons un processus de désignation, et, en ce qui a trait aux étudiant qui font des demandes d’aide financière, bien entendu, si la compagnie répond à toutes les obligations, les étudiants ont accès à l’aide financière. Donc, au ministère, des vérifications se font. Lorsqu’il y a
des irrégularités, parce que nous protégeons aussi les contribuables et les étudiants et les étudiantes,nous prenons des mesures. C’est ce que nous faisons dans des situations comme celle-ci.

Workers’ Compensation

Mr. A. LeBlanc: My question is for the Minister of Training and Employment Development. You know the story about Ricky Harding from Plaster Rock and the WHSCC. He had a broken leg and a broken ankle from an accident on November 8, 2004. Workers’ compensation would not cover this man because of the Native employer with coverage. What are you going to do with this for this injured worker?

Hon. Mrs. Blaney: I can certainly say to the member opposite that I am aware of the situation. I have just recently become aware of the situation. I cannot comment on the specifics of this case, because this is confidential information that belongs to this individual. You choose to talk specifically about and to name an individual. I chose not to. I do not have that individual’s permission to do so.

Again, I am aware of this situation, and I have been in contact with the WHSCC. I have asked that it take a very serious look at this situation. Beyond that, I am personally concerned about the bigger picture here as well as the individual’s particular situation. I have spoken with the Minister of Natural Resources, and we will get together to see if we can come up with internal solutions as well.

This primarily sits with the WHSCC, but I think that it is incumbent upon us to look at it as well.

However, I am concerned.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: Madam Speaker—Mr. Speaker to the minister. . .

(Interjections.)

Mr. A. LeBlanc: I did not call you brother this time. To the minister, you say that you were not directly involved, and I can understand that. However, your assistant has worked quite diligently on this case and is well aware of it, because he has talked to the injured worker just as I have. I think that there is something that you can do. I will point it out.

The injured worker with no earnings since last year—November 8—has lost his time even in court, because the WHSCC system . . . You have to share some of this responsibility through your own department, because this young gentleman has contacted your department.

Mr. Speaker: Question, member. Your time is up. Can you direct the question?

Mr. A. LeBlanc: Will the minister do the right thing and help this individual?

Hon. Mrs. Blaney: As the member opposite said himself, there has been a lot of discussion between my staff and the individual in question. I have had contact with the WHSCC. My staff has had contact with the WHSCC. We are working on this. As I said, I only recently became aware of this situation. I am concerned. I think this does need to be addressed, and I think this does go beyond just one individual circumstance. I think this is an issue that does need to be addressed, and we are
working on that.

Highways

Mr. Lamrock: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The minister will know that he had an awful lot of grateful people in Marysville, in my riding, when he announced an agreement with the federal government to build a bypass and finally get the trucks out of the residential areas.

He had an awful lot of support. I asked him about it in this House during estimates. I said: A lot of people are saying that you may try to change what you are doing or that commitment may not last.

Do I have your word? The minister said I did. I took him at that word, and I still do.

At the time there was a commitment to do it. I know that after that discussion, the Minister of Transportation asked the federal government to agree to a shorter, cheaper route, which caused some problems. Can the minister tell me today if it is still the intention of government, through either the shorter route or the longer route, to get the trucks out of residential Marysville on the same timetable
he committed to a year ago?

L’hon. P. Robichaud : J’apprécie vraiment la question du député de Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak et de pouvoir parler de la voie de détournement de Marysville ainsi que celle de Nashwaak- Marysville, parce qu’il est l’intention du gouvernement de faire une plus longue voie de détournement dans la région.

J’aimerais aviser le député que, au moment où l’on se parle, l’argent du gouvernement fédéral n’est toujours pas encore disponible, malgré le fait que l’annonce a été faite au moins deux fois. Le ministère fédéral des Transports et celui d’Infrastructure Canada ont avisé mon ministère, il n’y a
pas tellement longtemps que l’argent du gouvernement fédéral n’avait pas encore été approuvé par le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor, à Ottawa et que l’argent n’est pas encore disponible, autant pour la version abrégée qu’allongée de la voie de détournement de Marysville.

Mr. Lamrock: I am frankly confused by the answer. The minister sat down, there was a signed agreement. I know that the government received the federal money and started the project. If what he really means is that they have changed the route . . . For the other project that was announced with it, the money has arrived. If the minister has changed the route . . . That is what he has actually one here. He said he has changed the route to a longer one, and he is holding out for more than he
got. It is this minister who, in May, wrote and asked the federal government for permission to run a cheaper bypass than the one that was originally announced.
I asked the minister’s department, under the right to information, for all costing that was done for the longer Nashwaak bypass he is now talking about, because I wanted to see how quickly they were trying to get it done. Maybe there was a staffing error. The minister can clarify that, and that is fair enough. When I asked for the costing documents—the last time anyone had put together a cost
proposal for that bypass—what I got was a document prepared by the previous government in 1998.

My question to the minister is this: Is there an updated version that the department has been working on? Has it put a costing proposal for this new, longer bypass in front of the federal government? If it has, great. If not, then I am worried that this longer bypass is an excuse to undo its commitment to Marysville and try to blame the feds.

L’hon. P. Robichaud : Encore une fois le député de Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak et le Parti libéral est dans l’erreur concernant la voie de détournement de Marysville. Aucun argent du gouvernement fédéral nous a été accordé jusqu’à maintenant pour cette voie de détournement. Des fonctionnaires d’Infrastructure Canada ont pris rendez-vous à deux reprises avec les fonctionnaires du ministère des Transports pour venir voir le tracé que l’on proposait, et, à deux reprises, ils ont annulé leur
rencontre avec les fonctionnaires de mon ministère. Je tiens à aviser la Chambre qu’il est de notre intention d’aller de l’avant, comme gouvernement, avec la voie de détournement de Marysville, eh oui, nous allons demander également un plus long tracé jusqu’à South Portage, mais à ce jour, nous n’avons reçu aucun argent de l’annonce et de l’entente faite par le ministre fédéral d’Infrastructure
à l’époque, Andy Scott.