Wednesday, May 3, 2006
Waterville mayor angered by oil decision
By AMY CALDER
Staff Writer
2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
WATERVILLE -- Mayor Paul R. LePage on Tuesday night expressed outrage
that city councilors in his absence two weeks ago voted to approve a
three-year settlement with Irving Oil Co. without his knowledge.
LePage directed his anger at City Administrator Michael J. Roy, whom he
said placed the Irving item on the agenda for consideration at the
April 18 council meeting without his or Council Chairman Dana W. Sennett's
knowledge.
"The city administrator, without the mayor, made a policy decision and
I think it's bad -- it's terrible," LePage said.
LePage made the comments after Tuesday's council meeting, at which
LePage, in a surprise move, asked that councilors waive cloture and bring
up an item that was not on the agenda.
The item turned out to be a request to reconsider a decision councilors
made April 18 -- while LePage, Sennett and Councilor Donald N. Dufour,
D-Ward 5, were on vacation -- to approve a three-year contract with
Irving designed to give the city some of the oil owed it by the dealer,
P.P.C.O.M.
Councilors voted 4-3 Tuesday night not to waive cloture to reconsider
the Irving item, with Sennett, Dufour and Councilor Charles "Fred"
Stubbert Jr., voting to waive cloture and councilors Henry Beck, D-Ward 2,
Rosemary J. Winslow, D-Ward 3, Thomas R.W. Longstaff, D-Ward 6, and
Stephen R. Aucoin, D-Ward 7, opposing the move.
P.P.C.O.M. is an Oakland oil dealer now in bankruptcy that owes more
than $17 million to creditors who claim the company did not make good on
payments or delivery of fuel, including heating oil, gasoline and
diesel. Irving, P.P.C.O.M.'s supplier, is the largest creditor. Irving is
proposing to split 160,000 gallons of heating oil between 12 creditors
who hired an attorney to represent them. As part of the deal, the
creditors are obliged to buy all their heating oil from Irving during the next
three years.
LePage said Tuesday that he opposes the deal.
"It's a bad deal -- it's an enormously bad deal because you're locked
into a three-year contract. We have to buy our oil from Irving for three
years. This was put on the (April 18) agenda without my knowledge."
LePage, Sennett and Roy regularly meet the Wednesday before every
council meeting to set the agenda for each meeting. Both LePage and Sennett
said they did so before they went on vacation and decided not to place
the Irving item on the agenda, and that Roy placed it on the agenda
after they left for vacation.
LePage said the decision to place it on the agenda is a policy matter,
not an administrative one, and Roy's doing so was inappropriate.
"If you read the charter right now, the city administrator deals with
day-to-day operations; he is not is charge of putting things that are
policy items on the agenda without the council chairman or the mayor's
knowledge. It was put on after we left. Dana and I talked about it and we
decided it wasn't going to go on."
Roy, who disputed the claim that he did anything inappropriate, sent a
memo to councilors before the April 18 council vote, saying the
proposed settlement offered the best hope of getting some oil at no additional
cost. The creditors already had spent $30,000 in legal fees on the
issue, he wrote.
"Even though we will be committed to buying from Irving for three
years, the price of oil and transportation costs that they have offered
should remain very competitive," the memo states.
He told councilors at the April 18 meeting that the proposed settlement
was the best the city could get at the time.
Roy after Tuesday's meeting said support for the 12 organizations is
important to the settlement.
"Out of 12 organizations, if one or two pull out, the whole deal could
collapse for everyone else," he said.
The rift between LePage and Roy comes as a surprise in a relationship
that has been apparently mutually supportive.
LePage has been very vocal in his praise of Roy, whom he brought to the
city nearly 1 1/2 years ago from Oakland, where he was town manager.
After the discussion after the council meeting, LePage suggested he and
Roy go to the mayor's office downstairs to talk, which they did.
Amy Calder -- 861-9247
acalder@centralmaine.com
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
WATERVILLE MAINE OR SAINT JOHN NEW BRUNSWICK????
YES TONY HUNTJENS...HOW TIME FLIES??? < Who would have believe???? >
This is Tony Huntjens supporting Percy Mockler in his speech supporting workers from Quebec coming here.
Tony used to be an MLA from the C.O.R. PARTY!!!!
My God? How time flies????? Who would have believe 16 years ago that a C.O.R. MLA would support Quebec Workers????
Anything can happen in New Brunswick???
DOES ANYONE WISH TO HELP A MOTHER OF TWO????
Hello Charles, Can you mention online:
The Raeburn's, Mother and two daughters lost everything.
House burn on Sunday.
Even lost their 6 cats children pets and Kim the Mothers 2 German Shepherds and Van.
Trying to get them back on their feet!
We set-up account for cash donations.
Bank of Nova Scotia Branches at Rothesay and Westmorland Place.
Be forever grateful!
Take care,
Marcia Donahue
QUESTION PERIOD AT THE NEW BRUNSWICK LEGISLATURE!!!! < Mercredi >
ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 1/10
Federal Budget
Mr. S. Graham: Yesterday Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government
announced a $224-billion budget for our country. In November 2005, our Premier, in an attempt to
try to restart his government’s Prosperity Plan, announced a new strategy, Accelerating Greater
Opportunity. This included four key component areas: Investing in People, Building Strategic
Infrastructure, Creating a Competitive Fiscal and Business Environment, and finally, Embracing
Innovation. These are four critical areas that we agree need to be addressed.
My question is for the Premier this morning. This document also made a request of $1.5 billion of
the $224 billion that was announced yesterday in special funding for the province of New
Brunswick. It was an 80-20 cost-shared agreement, where the province would contribute 20% of the
funding and the federal government would contribute 80%. The first portion of the funding
requested was to increase immigration to New Brunswick. A $25-million project, $5 million to be
applied by the province and $20 million by the federal government . . .
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. S. Graham: My question to the Premier this morning is this: On this key component area, was
the $20 million included in the federal budget yesterday?
Hon. Mr. Lord: I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has taken the time to review the
document called Accelerating Greater Opportunity. I also hope he has taken the time to read the
Prosperity Plan, and I hope he takes the time to examine the Five in Five Initiative and all the policy
documents that support the direction of the government of New Brunswick. The fact is that we have
laid a very strong policy foundation to move the province forward, and we are succeeding. There
is good news in New Brunswick. We are succeeding with more jobs than ever before, with more
investments in health care and education, and with a new partnership with the federal government.
Mr. S. Graham: The people watching the debate in this Chamber today would expect the Premier
to answer the question. He chose not to, which is very unfortunate. My question, specifically, to the
Premier was this. The increased immigration strategy that your government submitted to the federal
government made a request for $20 million. It was a $25-million project. Was the $20-million
commitment included in yesterday’s federal budget?
Hon. Mr. Lord: This is not the place to go through the estimates of the federal budget. This is
actually the place to go through the estimates of the provincial budget. We want to get through the
estimates of the provincial budget, but it seems that the opposition does not. However, that is okay.
I know that we will eventually get around to it and will be able to describe all the good investments
that are made by the provincial government.
ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 2/10
The fact is that we did send to the previous Liberal federal government a proposal of partnership,
because that government kept saying that it wanted to invest in New Brunswick when, in fact, it was
not investing in our province. I decided to submit a formal proposal. That government was defeated.
There is a new government in Ottawa. We have a very good relationship. We have been able to get
money for roads. We have been able to get money for harbour cleanup. We have been able to get
money for a new stadium, and we will continue to get money and work to get money for more
investments, including for immigration.
013 10:55
Mr. S. Graham: I cannot believe the words coming out of our Premier’s mouth this morning. What
he is saying is that he is going to change his demands, based on the government in power.
My question, since the Premier has not answered the first two, is this: The second issue of
transitioning new postsecondary graduates in the workplace is a $35-million project that his
government has committed to. He is saying he is prepared to commit $7 million. Has the federal
government committed the $28 million in this budget that the Premier requested?
(Interjections).
Hon. Mr. Lord: I know that the opposition members find it funny. I am sorry, I am just human.
The fact is that we had made some proposals to the previous federal government. We continue to
work with the new federal government to get investments. All these investments were not meant to
be for just one year. They were designed for a six-year proposal. This is a long-term plan. The fact
is that we do have a partner. The other federal government did not even respond to Accelerating
Greater Opportunity. It simply said no, while the new federal government has clearly indicated that
it is willing to work with us. Frankly, if we can resolve the issue of the fiscal imbalance, we will be
able to do some of these things on our own.
That is why I am pleased that in yesterday’s federal budget, the federal government signalled its
intention to work with the provinces to fix the fiscal imbalance. I intend to be there at the table,
defending the interests of New Brunswick, as I have been doing for the last seven years, to make
sure that this is an important issue.
Mr. S. Graham: The Premier must be admitting today then that . . . I am concerned today, because
the Premier is saying that the proposal that was on the table in November 2005 is not on the table
now, in the spring of 2006, simply because the government has changed power. You would think
that the Premier would be committed to the plan that he tabled in this House last November.
The people of New Brunswick have not heard an answer to the two specific questions on the two
first areas I asked about. On the skills training and retraining program, the Premier had submitted
ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 3/10
a proposal to government whereby transitioning adult learners to the new economy through
enhanced workplace skills and literacy training was a priority. This was a $40-million program. You
were prepared to invest $5 million, but you were requesting $35 million from the federal
government. Was that included in yesterday’s federal budget?
Hon. Mr. Lord: I know that the Leader of the Opposition is impatient, and he is impatient to get
the details of the federal budget. I did not table the federal budget. The federal budget was not tabled
in this House. What was tabled in this House is an excellent budget. It was tabled about five weeks
ago. It is a great budget for New Brunswick, that enables us to fund the measures that we think are
essential for the people of New Brunswick, for training, for education, for health care, for tax relief
for businesses, with a balanced budget.
The Leader of the Opposition surely would know that all the single details of the budget are not
highlighted in the overall document of a federal government budget. There are envelopes that the
federal government can use to partner with provinces to fund certain projects, and that is what we
want. I did not expect to read yesterday in the federal budget: Accelerating Greater Opportunity—X
million dollars for New Brunswick. That is not how we expect this to be funded. We expect this to
be funded through partnership agreements with the federal government, as we did for the highways.
We did get $400-million, two-way funding for the highways of New Brunswick.
Mr. S. Graham: Again, the Premier has not answered the questions he has been asked this morning.
Clearly, the veil of secrecy was lifted off the federal budget yesterday. The question that the Premier
has to answer is this: What new agreement was given to New Brunswick? He submitted a proposal
requesting $1.5 billion from the federal government. Today, he is flip-flopping, saying that the
government has changed power, so we are not going to honour the commitment that we proposed
in November 2005.
014 11:00
It is evident. In the Building Strategic Infrastructure document, the Premier proposed, for the
national highway system—Routes 1, 7, 8, 11, and 17—a $3-million program, a $1-million
commitment from the provincial government, and a $200-million request from the federal
government. The Premier was requesting an 80-20 split. In the agreement that he just announced,
he changed his position and signed a 50-50 deal, which, traditionally, every political party in New
Brunswick did to build better roads.
My question to the Premier pertains to the municipal and green infrastructure. You submitted a $90-
million request. You were prepared to commit $30 million in provincial taxpayers’ money in this
investment, and you requested $60 million from the federal government. Was that announced in
yesterday’s federal budget?
ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 4/10
Hon. Mr. Lord: The words coming out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition are really
surprising today. He called the tabling of the budget a lifting of the veil of secrecy. What happened
yesterday was that the federal government tabled its budget; it was not lifting a veil of secrecy, it
just tabled the budget. With the Liberals, everything is a conspiracy. Everything is about some
devious plan. Perhaps that is how they operate, but that is not how we operate.
The fact is, we suggested, in Accelerating Greater Opportunity, that we would invest in Routes 17,
11, 8, 1, and 7. We proposed that we would like to get at least $200 million from the federal
government, and we were going to put in at least $100 million. Instead, we committed to putting in
at least $200 million from the provincial government, because there are some needs on Routes 1,
7, 8, 11, and 17.
When the Leader of the Opposition says that every party was able to get 50-50, that is not true,
because the amount of money that was received by the previous Liberal government for the
Moncton-to-Fredericton highway was zero. It was not 50%; they did not even get 50¢, let alone
50%. They got $0.
Mr. S. Graham: The former government of Frank McKenna was instrumental in signing the Labour
Market Development Agreement. In fact, your government signed the early learning and childhood
development agreement with the government of Jean Chrétien. The question we are asking today,
though, is this: What new agreement has been signed with the federal government in Ottawa that
will give New Brunswickers the opportunity to excel under this proposal that the government made
in November of 2005? I can go down the entire list, but the charade has to end. Unfortunately, today,
the Premier has not answered one specific request for information on where a request has been
finalized in the budget. He has received zero out of this document; a total of $0 has been achieved,
and that is unfortunate for the taxpayers of New Brunswick.
The Premier is saying that the strategy has changed and the plan has changed because there is a new
government in Ottawa. That is not what the people of New Brunswick expect from our Premier. Mr.
Premier, my question to you is very simple. The estimates process, when the document is tabled in
the House, does contain specific items of where money will be invested. Yes, the budget document
has to be kept secret until it is released; that is the veil of secrecy. Today, it is public document. You
had supper with Prime Minister Harper last week, Mr. Premier. Tell us: Of the $1.5-billion request
that you submitted in November, how much did you receive in yesterday’s budget?
Hon. Mr. Lord: I am very pleased that we have a good new partnership with the federal
government. I will state for the record, as I have before, that I had a good working relationship with
former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. The fact is, the previous federal Liberal government was intent
on trying to interfere with the priorities of New Brunswick, rather than supporting the priorities of
New Brunswick. The new federal government wants to support the priorities of New Brunswick.
The new federal government has been in place for about 100 days. Think about it. In 100 days, we
ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 5/10
were able to get a $400-million commitment on highways—$200 million from the feds, $200
million from the province. That $200 million is not bad.
We have also been able to get a commitment from the federal government that deals with the biggest
issue of the finances of this province and of this country—namely, how to address the fiscal
imbalance. I believe that when the negotiations on the fiscal imbalance take place over the next year,
it will be essential for New Brunswick to be there at the table, and I will be there.
015 11:05
Mr. Murphy: Based upon yesterday’s budget, when the negotiations begin on the fiscal imbalance,
we are going to get screwed again. Yesterday, we got nothing for New Brunswick. The Premier has
talked about his plan. That Prosperity Plan is the same one that delivered 0.2 GDP growth last year,
the second lowest job creation growth in Canada, and has missed three of its five goals so far.
My question is to the Minister of Finance. Two weeks ago, the Globe and Mail reported that the
federal government was going to take $3.3 billion from the surplus of last year and put it into five
different trusts. None of this was every reported. Based upon the fact that we have 3% of the
Canadian population, this could mean $90 million to $100 million in funds to the province of New
Brunswick. Can the Minister of Finance tell us about these five trusts, and indicate whether we have
access to that? Does it mean $90 million to $100 million, which, apparently, it has never announced?
Hon. Mr. Lord: I want to respond to the comments made by the member for Moncton North. First
of all, his language is not very parliamentary, but we are accustomed to that.
The fact is that the only way New Brunswick will be shortchanged at those negotiations is if ever
New Brunswick is represented by more Liberals, because that is when New Brunswick has been
shortchanged by the federal government or by the province of New Brunswick. It is when Liberals
are in charge. The last time the Liberals were in office in this province, they agreed with other
provinces to move to a per capita funding formula that was to the advantage of Alberta, Ontario, and
British Columbia—not New Brunswick. The quid pro quo that should have been obtained at the time
by the Liberal Premier of the day was better equalization, and that was not obtained. That took place
in the 1990s. We know what happens when the Liberals are there. They do not stand up for New
Brunswick. I have been working on the file of fiscal imbalance for seven years, and I intend to be
there to make sure that New Brunswick gets what we need to deliver the services.
Mr. Murphy: The Premier is correct. The language was not parliamentary, and I apologize to the
House for that. The fact is that we will get nothing, zip, nada, hammered by this federal government.
That was the point.
The question to the Minister of Finance is this: On December 1, on the CBC, he indicated that if the
Prime Minister reduced the GST by 1%, it would mean that, in New Brunswick, we will lose $90
ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 6/10
million in revenue. I would like the Minister of Finance to explain what he meant on December 1,
2005 when he said that to the CBC.
L’hon. M. Volpé : Une fois de plus, je tenterai d’éclaircir la situation pour le député de Moncton-
Nord. Il est confus. La question posée cherchait à savoir quel serait l’impact sur le Nouveau-
Brunswick d’une baisse de 1 % sur la TPS. J’avais dit que, pour chaque diminution de 1 %, notre
part de 8 % sur le total de 15 % vaut à peut près 98 millions. On ne perd rien parce que c’est la partie
fédérale qui est réduite de 1 %. J’espère que le député de Moncton-Nord comprendra que c’est la
partie fédérale qui sera réduite.
Donc, les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick pourront garder tout près de 100 millions dans toutes les
régions de la province. Les personnes à faible revenu et les personnes mieux nanties qui achèteront
des produits et des services pourront garder tout près de 100 millions. Je ne sais pas pourquoi le
député de Moncton-Nord est contre cela. Il est habitué à un gouvernement libéral qui taxe les gens
et garde leur argent. D’une façon plutôt obscure, ce genre de gouvernement redistribue l’argent à
ses amis.
Mr. Murphy: On December 1, the Minister of Finance said: So, if they decide to reduce it, there
will be an impact. He spoke of $90 million. Whether it is indirect or through federal transfer
payments, we do not know. That is why I asked for an explanation, because he said that. Yesterday,
the federal budget delivered zero for the seniors, and zero for those on fixed income. It, in fact,
raised income tax for the working poor from 15% to 15.5%, from the lowest tax bracket. For child
care, it is giving out $25 a week, when it takes $5 000 to $8 000 per year for child care in a licensed
institution. The 1% GST reduction helps those with more money to spend, and our working poor and
poor do not have a lot to spend.
016 11:10
I would like the Minister of Finance to tell us specifically what came from this federal budget to
help our poor and our working poor?
L’hon. M. Volpé : Le concept d’une gestion prudente et efficace des finances de la province ou du
Canada n’est pas compris par les Libéraux. De ce côté-là de la Chambre, on nous dit que, si le
fédéral réduit ses recettes de tout près de 100 millions venant du Nouveau-Brunswick, c’est comme
si on disait qu’on réduira les services. Absolument pas. Au Nouveau-Brunswick, depuis 1999, on
a des exemples où nous avons réduit la dette de la province, nous avons réduit les impôts des gens
et nous avons équilibré nos budgets. C’est possible. Le fédéral a la même ligne de pensée que le
gouvernement provincial. Il nous dit que le gouvernement peut gérer ses finances d’une façon
efficace pour aller chercher cet argent à l’interne sans réduire les services et en augmentant les
bénéfices pour tous les gens partout au Canada.
ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 7/10
Je me demande encore pourquoi le député de Moncton-Nord est contre le fait que les gens du
Nouveau-Brunswick pourront conserver tout près de 100 millions qu’on envoyait avant à un
gouvernement libéral qui prenait cet argent et le donnait à ses amis. Je ne peux comprendre cela.
Lorsqu’il nous dit qu’il n’y a rien dans le budget pour les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick, c’est
totalement faux. Les transferts pour les garderies, au lieu d’être de quelque 20 millions par année,
sont de 50 millions par année pour les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker: Time.
Conflict of Interest
Mr. Arseneault: Today, my question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, the Deputy Premier
stated that Grama’s Bake Shop was placed in a blind trust. Apparently, the Deputy Premier’s
definition of blind trust is that he gets to remain as a director of the corporation and still uses the
company credit card. Pursuant to the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, the Deputy Premier is
required to receive written approval from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to have a company
in blind trust while serving as a member of the Executive Council. The Deputy Premier also stated
to the media that he would provide them with a letter from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner
this morning with his written approval on the blind trust. Does the Deputy Premier have this letter,
and is he willing to share it with the Legislature?
Hon. D. Graham: I certainly do have the letter in hand, and I certainly am ready to table it at this
moment.
Mr. Arseneault: It is a question of the integrity of the government and the lack thereof of this
government on this issue. The Members’ Conflict of Interest Act clearly states that no member of
the Executive Council may “engage in the management of a business carried on by a corporation”
and that no member should be making decisions that result in a personal benefit. In March 2003, the
Deputy Premier spent 10 days attending a 3-day conference in Las Vegas on behalf of the
government. Instead of paying for his airline tickets and conference registration fees with his
ministerial credit card, the Deputy Premier chose to utilize the credit card of Grama’s Bake Shop,
the company held in blind trust. If the Deputy Premier has his company in blind trust and, as the Act
states, he cannot be involved in any of its operation, why is the Deputy Premier carrying the credit
card of Grama’s Bake Shop in his pocket and using it for ministerial expenses?
Hon. D. Graham: I certainly did pay for my trip to Las Vegas on the card of Grama’s Bake Shop,
and I will remind the member to get the facts. It was very clear: Grama’s Bake Shop, Dale Graham.
I certainly paid my company back. Once again, we see the tactics of the provincial Liberals. I
encouraged and asked the member . . . He made the statement yesterday: Can the Deputy Premier
tell us why he broke the law? I encourage him to go outside and ask me that question.
ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 8/10
Mr. Arseneault: I would encourage the Deputy Premier to understand what a blind trust means. He
cannot be involved in any shape or form with the company in question. He just admitted a while ago
that he uses the company credit card. The Deputy Premier is not respecting the letter or the spirit of
the conflict of interest legislation. Time and again, the Deputy Premier claimed reimbursement for
ministerial expenses on his company’s credit card when it is not permitted by law to be involved in
its operation.
My final question to the Deputy Premier today is this. Since he has a ministerial credit card at his
disposal, why is he constantly paying for ministerial expenses with the credit card of Grama’s Bake
Shop? Is it because he is accumulating air miles? How many air miles has this minister accumulated
on the backs of taxpayers of New Brunswick?
017 11:15
Hon. D. Graham: I certainly had a conversation with Judge Ryan yesterday. I explained everything
that was brought up in yesterday’s question period. He has faxed me a letter today. I am going to
call, after question period. I will make the call and ask the member of the opposition to get a full
briefing on what “blind trust” means. It is on paper, and I can tell you that I followed every
commitment that is in that blind trust agreement.
Mr. V. Boudreau: My questions . . .
Mr. Speaker: Order. Member for Tantramar, order. Minister of Transportation, order. There is no
need for this. Member for Tantramar, first warning.
Provincial Health Plan
Mr. V. Boudreau: My questions this morning are for the Minister of Health. I would like to talk
about the provincial health plan, which was tabled in June of 2004. There is a section in the health
plan which talks about health research. I would like to quote one section:
Health research is a key ingredient in making the best use of our health resources, to train and
attract health professionals and to promote a culture of research and innovation. Researchers can
provide valuable knowledge that policy makers and planners can use to develop more efficient,
effective health services. “Made-in-New-Brunswick research” will help us find local solutions to
the challenges facing our health services system.
Since 2003, there has been a group, including universities, regional health authorities, the RHA
association, and other medical stakeholders, which has established the New Brunswick Rural Health
Research Network, in the hope that it may one day become a national rural health research institute,
based here in New Brunswick. What funding has the Department of Health allocated to this
worthwhile initiative in the current fiscal year?
ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 9/10
Hon. Mr. Green: I will get back to the member opposite with a precise answer to his question on
that particular area of research in the province. I can say that just within the last several days, I have
signed several letters to researchers here in the province who are working with our universities in
the area of medical research. A lot of exciting work is being done here in New Brunswick, in the
area of health research. That is being supported very strongly by the province. I will be pleased to
provide those details to the member opposite, as well.
Mr. V. Boudreau: Based on our research, the answer is zero. It was zero last year, and it was zero
the previous year. There is also another quote in the provincial health plan that reads:
Research also has the potential to make an increased contribution to the New Brunswick economy.
Every year, national funding agencies invest more than a billion dollars in health research across
the country. However, very little of this funding comes to New Brunswick, due in part to the fact that
New Brunswick is the only province without a provincial health research organization.
As part of the provincial health plan, the government did commit to a $3-million fund for health
research. Almost two years have gone by since announcing this fund, and, so far, to our knowledge,
absolutely nothing has been spent. Can the minister confirm how much of this fund has been spent
to date, and on what specific projects?
Hon. Mr. Green: It was less than 90 seconds ago that I stated on the floor of the House that we have
been investing in medical health research in this province. I indicated that just within the last several
days, we have approved several different projects for funding. Again, I will be pleased to provide
that information to the member opposite. One thing I know for certain is that since 1999, when this
government took office, the growth in innovation and research and development in this province,
in all sectors, has far outstripped anything that happened before 1999, and that is something in which
we take a great deal of pride.
Mr. V. Boudreau: Obviously, if the minister had something concrete to tell us, he would have
announced it during his answers. The $3 million has been on the table for two years now. As
recently as a couple of months ago, when we were questioning the various RHAs, when we were
questioning the department on the public accounts, not one nickel of that $3 million had been spent
to date.
018 11:20
The provincial health plan also states that:
The Department of Health and Wellness will partner with New Brunswick Innovation Foundation
(NBIF) and other stakeholders to build health research capacity, foster innovation in the health
system, promote evidence-based decision-making and increase New Brunswick’s competitive
position in the national health research funding arena.
ORAL QUESTIONS 23 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 3, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 3 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\29 2006-05-03 BL\29 2006-05-03 BL.wpd 10/10
We have the New Brunswick Rural Health Research Network, which is trying to get some funding,
some seed money, from this government. I would make a suggestion to the government that it take
10% of this $3-million fund and give it to this network to help it become a research institute and go
get more money from the federal government and from other stakeholders. Is the minister open to
that suggestion?
Hon. Mr. Green: Once again, I have already made it clear. We are investing in health research. I
have also stated that I would be happy to provide the member opposite with details of the
investments we are making. When it comes to improving the health of New Brunswickers in rural
areas, we are making significant progress. There are 214 more doctors in this province,
provincewide, than when we took office in 1999—not 214 as a gross number, but as a net increase.
The health of New Brunswickers, regardless of where they live, is very important to us, and we are
making the investments to make that happen.
BERNARD LORD SAYS NO TO SHAWN GRAHAM!!!!
No deal in the Legislature for the Liberals proposals to pass the budget.
No election in the fall!!!!
IS THE BERNARD LORD GOVERNMENT BROKE????
I guess they cannot afford a new Canadian Flag!!!
What a shameful act for our tourists to witness!!!!
Shame....shame ...shame....
we seem to have problems with the comments.....
GOD'S MINUTE!!!!
I SAID, "O LORD, HAVE MERCY ON ME; HEAL ME, FOR I HAVE
SINNED AGAINST YOU."
( PSALM 41:4 *NIV )
Dear Charles,
When we fall victim to sin, we may repent of our sins and ask
God for forgiveness. For it is written; "COME NOW, LET US
REASON TOGETHER," SAYS THE LORD. "THOUGH YOUR
SINS ARE LIKE SCARLET, THEY SHALL BE AS WHITE AS
SNOW; THOUGH THEY ARE RED AS CRIMSON, THEY SHALL
BE LIKE WOOL." ( ISAIAH 1:18 )
This is because; IF WE CONFESS OUR SINS, HE IS
FAITHFUL AND JUST AND WILL FORGIVE US OUR SINS
AND PURIFY US FROM ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
( 1 JOHN 1:9 ) FOR YOU, LORD ARE GOOD, AND READY TO
FORGIVE, AND ABUNDANT IN MERCY TO ALL WHO CALL
ON YOU. ( PSALM 86:5 )
Further, God has even promised; I WILL FORGIVE THEIR
WICKEDNESS AND WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO
MORE. ( HEBREWS 8:12 ) So never feel that you have done
something that God will not forgive.
Therefore Charles, PRAISE BE TO THE LORD, OUR SAVIOR,
WHO DAILY BEARS OUR BURDENS. ( PSALM 68:19 )
Praise HIM indeed! Amen.
With My Love & Prayers,
your servant Allen
[ Prayer Requests---Contact Us---Bible Study---*Donations* ]
[ Audio---Subscribe---Change of Address---Unsubscribe ]
at: http://www.godsminute.org
Apostle Paul Ministries, P O Box 55996, Hayward, CA 94545
(c) Copyright 2006 by Apostle Paul Ministries
MR.MCFARLANE??? LEAVE THOSE VENDORS ALONE!!!!
Hi Charles, I didn't get yesterdays'
blog updates...
Are yu going to do a piece on the license hike in Saint John for the Hotdog cart vendors!!
I guess the mayor thinks he will be able to recoup some of the taxes he lost out on with the LNG contract, from the small business owners!!!
I guess M. Hooton isn't all she is professes to be for the small business owners, as not a word of support from her...
She will probably say she didn't know about the rate hike for the vendors...I wonder if they are going to charge the Christmas Tree sellers the same fee in December.....
BERNARD RICHARD TO INVESTIGATE LETTERGATE!!!!!
Watchdog will probe privacy complaint against premier
Last updated May 2 2006 04:51 PM ADT
CBC News
New Brunswick's ombudsman has agreed to investigate a complaint against Premier Bernard Lord and Transportation Minister Paul Robichaud.
Liberal Leader Shawn Graham asked Bernard Richard to look into the release of a letter that contained personal information about a New Brunswick resident.
The release of the letter led to the resignation last week of Lord's press secretary, Chisholm Pothier.
The Liberals want to know if Lord approved the release of the letter.
Richard, a former Liberal MLA, also wants to know who authorized the release of the letter, and is concerned Pothier's resignation could send a chill through the public service.
"I've decided that I will investigate the complaint," said Richard. "If civil servants feel that this is the new standard now, that if they provide information that may be borderline, they might be called upon to resign or be fired as a result."
Liberals say both Lord and Robichaud violated the Protection of Private Information Act by keeping a letter containing a citizen's personal and private information and using it for political gain.
The individual's personal information was contained in a January 2005 letter Lord referred to in the legislature last week.
The letter was addressed to Transportation Minister Paul Robichaud and written by Liberal MLA Carmel Robichaud, on behalf of a constituent who had been convicted of drunk driving, but wanted a permit to drive to and from work.
Lord referred to the letter after the Liberal Opposition raised questions about Tory supporters trying to influence the government on a Shediac development project.
Lord offered to table the letter in the house, suggesting Liberal MLAs were using their influence to help drunk drivers get back behind the wheel.
Outside of the chambers, Pothier handed copies of the letter to reporters without blacking the individual's name out. He apologized, saying he regretted that decision and was personally responsible for making the letter public. He then resigned.
Lord says Pothier is the only person in violation of the act, and insists neither he or Robichaud broke the rules.
"He did receive a complaint so the ombudsman feels compelled, I presume, to examine the complaint and he will. There's nothing wrong with that," Lord said. "But I can tell you that I did not break the act and neither did Minister Robichaud."
Richard estimates his investigation will take approximately two months to complete.
EVER WONDERED? WHY DO YOU SEE SHOPPING CARTS AROUND???
Charles,
This afternoon I witnessed a good Samaritan act and I thought that I
would share it with you.
I work in Saint John and we have dark coloured windows which we can see out of and people cannot see in (except at night).
We were just finishing up our lunch when we noticed a elderly man carrying
at least 8 grocery bags full and walking towards town.
He would take 3 steps and then put all of the groceries down, take a break and then resume his walk.
One of the girls said I cannot stand watching him, I am going to see
if he needs a drive.
Sure enough out she goes and asked this man if he wanted a drive.
He said that he had a long way to go because he lived on the other side of the South End.
She told him that she would drive him
and he could not of been any more pleased and Thankful.
He told her that he is a diabetic and he has to go to Sobey's to buy his food which most is specialty stuff.
My friend said that his bags were so thin that they were ready to bust anyways so she was glad that she decided to drive the stranger.
He said that it cost him so much for his food that he didn't have enough to get a Taxi so that is why he was walking.
She came back and said how good that it made her feel.
I know that most people would never
even think of doing what she did and for safety reasons it might not of been the smartest but when you see the elderly struggling to survive in this world today, any act of kindness is appreciated by them.
Now I know why I might see a shopping cart way off of the beaten track once in a while.
QUESTION PERIOD AT THE NEW BRUNSWICK LEGISLATURE!! < Mardi >
ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 1/10
016 14:10
Federal Funding
Mr. S. Graham: My question this afternoon is for the Premier. Federal news reports have indicated
that a considerable portion of Stephen Harper’s budget, which is being presented today in the House
of Commons, will be focusing on the environment and on building on the legacy of former Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney. My question to the Premier this afternoon pertains to the fact that two of
the largest environmental projects in this province which require funding from the federal
government are the restoration of the Petitcodiac River and the cleanup of Saint John Harbour.
This Saturday, Prime Minister Harper was in New Brunswick, and we welcome the fact that he was
here. At the same time, I would like to ask the Premier this afternoon: Can he tell the House whether
he received confirmation from Prime Minister Harper that there would be funding in today’s budget
for the cleanup of Saint John Harbour?
Hon. Mr. Lord: I will certainly not give any details of the budget that will be tabled today, because
I have no details of what will be tabled in the budget today. The new Minister of Finance will table
his budget this afternoon. I wait with anticipation to hear what will be in that budget. Of one thing
I am certain: It will be a great budget for Canadians.
Mr. S. Graham: Clearly, after spending a number of hours with the Prime Minister on Saturday
evening, the Premier has a moral responsibility to give some degree of indication that there is going
to be federal funding available for these two important projects. My question to the Premier this
afternoon is this: On January 16, 2006, the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the
Opposition—Stephen Harper—stated: We’ll do it. We’ve made a clear commitment. It’s within our
environmental and infrastructure budget. That was the statement from the Prime Minister on January
16, 2006, so the Prime Minister is aware of this issue.
My question to you is this, Mr. Premier: Did you press the Prime Minister on Saturday night,
stressing that this was an important issue for the people of New Brunswick, and asking whether it
would be included in today’s budget? That is what we want to know. Did you make the pitch, and
did you succeed in having it included?
Hon. Mr. Lord: One thing we know is that the Leader of the Opposition was incapable of getting
any money from the previous federal government, for any project. As we know, the previous Liberal
government was incapable of pressing any issue with the previous federal Liberal government. For
instance, did they get any money for the Saint John Harbour cleanup? No, they did not. Did they get
any money for the Petitcodiac River cleanup? No, they did not. Did they get any money for the
Trans-Canada Highway twinning between Moncton and Fredericton? No, they did not.
ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 2/10
One thing is certain: The Prime Minister was in New Brunswick again. I am glad he was back in our
province. When he was here on his first trip as Prime Minister, we made an announcement to fund
the first steps of the harbour cleanup, and I can assure you that our government is committed to
funding other steps down the road.
Mr. S. Graham: The Premier is correct in his response this afternoon. Yes, we were incapable,
because the Premier forgets a very important fact: We were not in government. If the Premier wants
to give us that opportunity, let him call an election this fall. The most this Premier can do is to blame
the opposition because he has failed to secure the necessary funding for harbour cleanup.
017 14:15
The option remains: Let the people of New Brunswick decide, on a fixed date this fall, who can best
govern New Brunswick. My question to the Premier is very clear. If he is saying that he is waiting
to see what is in this budget for harbour cleanup today, if he has failed to make the pitch and failed
to succeed in landing the funding that is necessary, if he is saying that his budget includes funding,
can he give us a commitment today of how much money is in this budget as the provincial portion
for harbour cleanup?
Hon. Mr. Lord: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition should look back at the platforms of the
Liberal Party in the past. The Liberals, including some who are sitting right in the front row of the
Liberals today—maybe one or two actually sat in the front row here between 1995 and
1999—campaigned on harbour cleanup back in 1995, and they delivered zero for Saint John from
1995 to 1999 for harbour cleanup. Nothing would change this year if the Liberals were given a third,
fourth, or fifth chance. They failed to deliver in the past, and they will fail to deliver if the
opportunity ever presents itself again. We have delivered, and we will continue to deliver for Saint
John and harbour cleanup. I am willing. I have met with the mayor and told him that our government
is willing to sign an agreement with the city of Saint John, committing the government of New
Brunswick to $20 million over the next decade for harbour cleanup.
Mr. S. Graham: As we continue to allow 16 million L of raw sewage each day to flow into the
harbour, $20 million on an $88-million project over the next 10 years is unacceptable.
Environment
Since the Premier was not able to convince his federal counterpart in Ottawa that this project is a
priority for our province and he has not indicated that it will be included in today’s budget, my next
question pertains to the restoration of the Petitcodiac River. When Prime Minister Harper was in the
Delta Hotel in Moncton on Saturday evening, all he had to do was look out the window and see the
importance of bringing forward a concrete plan for the restoration of the Petitcodiac River. My
question to the Premier is this: Has your government submitted a proposal to the federal government
ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 3/10
pertaining to the restoration of the Petitcodiac River and the cleanup of the Saint John harbour?
What actual documentation have you submitted to request federal funding?
Hon. Mr. Lord: The provincial government and I, in meetings with the Prime Minister, have raised
the issue of harbour cleanup, and I have raised the issue of the Petitcodiac River. In fact, we have
been able to obtain some federal funding for the harbour cleanup. The Leader of the Opposition may
say that $20 million is not a lot of money. That is because the Leader of the Opposition likes
spending other people’s money. That is because he is risky and reckless in his approach to public
policy. They like to say that $20 million is not a lot of money, but it is $20 million more than what
was delivered by the Liberals when they had a chance to clean up the Saint John harbour. They
delivered zero dollars for the people of Saint John, and now, $20 million is not enough. It is always
that way with Liberals. It is never enough unless they get the money for themselves.
Mr. S. Graham: May I remind the Premier this afternoon that it was the former Liberal government
that committed the necessary funding, approximately 41% of the federal funding necessary to bring
the project up to date, where it is today. The real question pertaining to the Premier this afternoon
is the fact that he has not been able to get federal funding for harbour cleanup. He has not been able
to get the federal funding for the restoration of the Petitcodiac River, and he has the audacity to
stand up here today and say that $20 million is what is going to be put in place over a 10-year
period. We are saying that we have a responsibility to the environment to make the necessary
investments.
You callously said that we do not respect the taxpayers’ money. Well, it is you, Mr. Premier, who
is spending the taxpayers’ money, trying to influence votes and buy votes with people on this side
of the House. We very clearly welcome an election. The people of New Brunswick will decide who
should govern the province. Make no mistake about it: Environment will be a key issue.
018 14:20
Hon. Mr. Lord: I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to throw out accusations in this
House, and I expect that will continue for quite some time. We are here to deal with the issues of
importance to the people of New Brunswick. I welcome the fact that there is a new federal
government in Ottawa. With this new government, we have replaced a relationship of talk down,
confrontation that we were faced with before, with one of a new partnership in progress. Maybe the
Leader of the Opposition was not around on the day the Prime Minister came here. We did announce
funding for Saint John Harbour cleanup. For the first time, the three levels of government were
standing on the same stage saying yes to harbour cleanup.
We have also been able to obtain three-way funding of $13 million for a stadium in Moncton. We
have also been able to obtain a $400-million highway agreement for the national highway system
in New Brunswick. That is real commitment.
ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 4/10
Mr. S. Graham: The devil will be in the details. Today, New Brunswickers will determine if this
Premier was successful in securing the necessary funding under this new federal budget. The
question the Premier will have to answer is: Will there be money set aside today in the federal
budget for harbour cleanup? He has not answered that question. Will there be money set aside for
the restoration of the Petitcodiac River? In fact, the member for Moncton North had said three years
ago that a trust fund should be established, so that the province would be able to move quickly when
the federal government came to the table. We will wait to see about that.
Employment
My last question is, While Prime Minister Harper was in New Brunswick on Saturday, did he give
any clear commitment as to what new public service jobs will be put in the Miramichi to replace the
200 jobs that will be eliminated in that city? The question I am asking today is: If the Premier could
not get a clear commitment on the two environmental issues, what clear commitment did he get for
the 200 well-paying jobs in the Miramichi and the people who depend on them for their livelihood?
Hon. Mr. Lord: I want to correct the Leader of the Opposition, who is wrong again. He is wrong
when he states that the federal government did not make a commitment to harbour cleanup. It has,
and the Prime Minister announced that commitment himself. There is provincial, federal, and
municipal money going toward harbour cleanup, and the funding is in place. We have also made a
commitment for a longer term arrangement which would include the city of Saint John. We want
the federal government to be onboard for that as well.
I have raised the issue of the long-gun registry with the Prime Minister. Unlike the opposition, we
have a clear position on the long-gun registry. We are opposed to the gun registry program that was
put in place by the federal Liberals. It wasted so much money that they could have cleaned up the
harbour and the Petitcodiac River, along with completing the highway between Moncton and
Fredericton, and still have lots of money left over.
Our position is clear. We also want the federal government to maintain jobs in Miramichi. Those
jobs are not yet eliminated because a decision has not been made by the federal government. The
legislation has not been changed. Our position is crystal clear: Let’s get rid of the long-gun registry
and let’s keep jobs in New Brunswick.
Home Heating Oil Benefit Program
Mr. Doherty: We have recently introduced An Act to Amend the New Brunswick Income Tax Act,
whereby we are seeking to extend the deadline for the home heating rebate for customers heating
with heating fuel. This program was announced during the by-election in Saint John in November
2005. Unfortunately, the introduction of Bill 57 was not met with as much enthusiasm as we had
otherwise expected. However, just this morning, we heard on the CBC that consideration was now
being given to the extension of this program.
ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 5/10
My question to the Minister of Finance is quite simple: Why would he wait until the deadline has
passed, and after we introduced Bill 57, before he started considering our idea? It is important to be
proactive and timely when it comes to the subsidization of our low- and fixed-income families. Why
did he wait?
L’hon. M. Volpé : Premièrement, une fois de plus, on a un député qui est mal et dans l’erreur.
L’engagement n’a pas été pris durant les élections en 2005 mais au mois d’août. Une fois on doit
corriger les parlementaires de l’opposition.
019 14:25
De ce côté de la Chambre, l’engagement du gouvernement a été de donner un rabais aux gens qui
utilisaient du mazout. Des termes ont été établis, et des gens ont fait une demande. De ce côté de la
Chambre, contrairement aux Libéraux qui étaient au pouvoir il y a quelques années, nous avons
respecté notre engagement. Je me rappelle très bien que, lorsque j’étais à l’opposition, le
gouvernement en place avait pris un engagement pour réduire l’impôt sur le revenu des particuliers
au cours de l’élection de 1995. Il n’a jamais respecté cet engagement. De ce côté de la Chambre,
nous avons pris un engagement et nous l’avons respecté. Ce que nous avons dit, c’est que nous
étions prêts à considérer à allonger la période jusqu’à la fin juin. De ce côté de la Chambre, nous
avons respecté l’engagement qui était d’aller jusqu’à la fin du mois d’avril.
Mr. Doherty: Do I understand from the response that the minister is considering extending the
program until July 1?
L’hon. M. Volpé : D’après ce que je comprends, il y a un projet de loi qui sera présenté par
l’opposition, et nous allons avoir la chance de le débattre dans quelques minutes probablement.
Donc, nous aurons la chance de donner des détails. Étant donné que l’opposition nous donne un peu
la chance de revoir les engagements du gouvernement précédent — et nous avons parlé ce matin de
l’enseignement supérieur —, je demanderais à tous les parlementaires du côté de l’opposition de
conseiller leur chef lorsqu’il prend des engagements. En effet, de 1995 à 1997, un engagement de
la part du gouvernement libéral avait été fait d’aider les collèges communautaires, mais il a réduit
de 2,2 % les fonds destinés aux collèges communautaires. Une fois de plus, l’ancien gouvernement
libéral a renié ses promesses. Que le député de Saint John Harbour vienne nous donner des conseils
comment respecter nos engagements… Eh bien, nous avons respecté notre engagement de l’automne
dernier qui indiquait jusqu’au 31 avril. Cet après-midi durant le débat, nous allons prendre en
considération, si nous allons allonger la période.
Mr. Doherty: We look forward to the debate. It is also important that this program be effectively
utilized. According to the Department of Finance, there has been only about 50% participation. This
is barely a passing grade. In addition to extending this program, Bill 57 also looks at extending the
home heating rebate to other sources of fuel. The Department of Finance claims that the extension
of this program is under consideration. Are we to assume that with the extension of this program to
ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 6/10
July 2006, the Minister of Finance is also considering our idea, per Bill 57, to open discussions on
alternate forms of heating? As you know, three-quarters of New Brunswickers heat their homes with
baseboard electrical heating. Once again, I encourage this government and the Premier to take our
ideas, if it means that New Brunswickers, especially those who are living in poverty and on fixed
incomes, are positively affected.
L’hon. M. Volpé : Ce que l’on voit une fois de plus, c’est un groupe de l’opposition en manque
d’idées, et ce, à un tel point, que ces gens prennent nos idées et essaient de se ramasser du mérite.
Je viens d’entendre le député d’en face nous dire que l’idée du rabais sur le mazout venait de leur
côté. Une fois de plus, c’est faux. Cela a été annoncé par le présent gouvernement, et nous avons
respecté notre engagement. Justement, en fin de semaine, j’ai vu que le chef de l’opposition a
rencontré un groupe de personnes âgées. Là, il dit aux personnes âgées : Si nous sommes élus, on
va vous laisser vos maisons et on va réduire les taux par mois. Cela a été annoncé par notre
gouvernement. C’est une honte. Il y a un groupe de gens à l’opposition qui sont en manque d’idées.
Il y a un vide intellectuel. Les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick commencent à se rendre compte ce qu’il
y a de l’autre côté de la Chambre : un vide intellectuel et un manque flagrant d’idées.
Gambling
Mr. Murphy: Gambling in New Brunswick has become very problematic. We have many casinos
under a number of roofs, with bars assembling themselves with different licenses. We have a Texas
Hold’em problem. We have the crack cocaine of VLTs out there that takes large bills. We have a
dying horse racing industry. We have Internet gambling. All these things have come about to a point
of crisis.
020 14:30
I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I know that gambling is something that the
government is very worried about, but it is also something that it has to have a deadline on. It is a
very simple question. Will the Minister of Finance advise this House as to whether the gambling
strategy study that has been undertaken for so very long will be released by June 1 of this year?
L’hon. M. Volpé : La réponse sera donnée lorsque le travail sera terminé. L’engagement du
gouvernement actuel est de prendre une approche prudente et de vérifier les cas. À plusieurs
reprises, nous avons apporté de l’information que nous avons évaluée. Il y a un autre document de
travail auquel nous sommes en train de travailler et que nous apporterons au comité des priorités
pour évaluation. Il semble y avoir des endroits où nous pourrions bouger un peu plus rapidement.
À d’autres endroits, il y a encore des questions à poser. Cependant, notre intention est de mettre en
place une politique du jeu au Nouveau-Brunswick qui aura un impact positif sur les gens du
Nouveau-Brunswick.
ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 7/10
Mr. Murphy: I have no doubts as to the good intentions of the minister or even the government in
this regard, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The difficulty here is that this has
taken so very long. While it takes that long, people are losing their lives in every fashion, and
families are suffering. Once again, I am urging the government to move ahead quickly on this. With
regard to the parameters of the study, will the minister confirm whether they have excluded private
investment and private enterprise in favour of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation being involved in
the entire strategy or whether it is a combination of both?
L’hon. M. Volpé : Pour être bien clair, de ce côté-ci de la Chambre, nous pensons qu’une politique
du jeu bien réglementée est la meilleure approche. Donc, nous continuerons à évaluer les différentes
options. Je peux comprendre que c’est frustrant pour le député de Moncton-Nord, qui possède, luimême,
des chevaux et qui voudrait que nous poussions le plus rapidement possible afin de pouvoir
assurer la participation de ses chevaux sur une piste de course. Toutefois, de ce côté-ci de la
Chambre, nous prendrons le temps nécessaire de nous assurer que la politique que nous mettrons
en place sera la meilleure pour les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Mr. Murphy: This morning, I was at the barn shoveling horse manure. I never get homesick when
I come up here, because I can smell the same thing when this government starts answering
questions. My question to the Minister of Finance is this: Will he simply confirm to this House . . .
(Interjection.)
Mr. Murphy: Mr. Speaker, can I get the attention . . .
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I recognize the member for Moncton North. Please have a little respect.
Mr. Murphy: Will the minister simply confirm to New Brunswick that the status quo with regard
to the number of VLTs out there and in all these mini-casinos is simply unacceptable as it is now?
L’hon. M. Volpé : Justement, nous voulons changer le statu quo. Ce ne sont pas seulement les
casinos situés dans des hippodromes que nous sommes en train d’évaluer. Nous regardons tout le
côté des tournois de poker, les bingos et tout ce qui touche au jeu au Nouveau-Brunswick et dans
les secteurs où il y a vraiment des défis. Nous voulons nous assurer d’avoir vraiment la réponse qui
convient aux gens du Nouveau-Brunswick. Nous avons des dossiers dans les secteurs… Je vais vous
donner un exemple. Du côté des bingos au Nouveau-Brunswick, il y a des endroits où il n’y a pas
assez de bénévoles pour s’occuper des bingos. Nous prenons le secteur privé. Cela a causé des
problèmes car les bénévoles n’ont pas reçu l’argent qu’ils devaient recevoir. Il y a des cas en cour
présentement. Donc, il faut s’assurer d’avoir une politique de jeu qui protège les gens du Nouveau-
Brunswick.
ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 8/10
J’entends le député de Moncton-Nord nous dire qu’il semblerait qu’il a brassé du fumier ce matin
et je crois qu’il en brasse beaucoup plus de son côté de la Chambre. Pour lui, je pense que c’est une
pratique. Ensuite, il vient continuer son travail à la Chambre.
Conflict of Interest
Mr. Arseneault: My question this morning is for the Deputy Premier. Could the Deputy Premier
please state to the Legislature the relationship between the Deputy Premier and the company
Grama’s Bake Shop Ltd. on 767 Central Street, in Centreville, New Brunswick?
Hon. D. Graham: I can assure the honourable member on the other side that I do have that company
in blind trust.
Mr. Arseneault: The New Brunswick Business Corporations Act Form 24.2 filed in 2005 indicates
that the Deputy Premier is one of two directors of Grama’s Bake Shop Ltd. in Centreville, New
Brunswick. If the company is held in blind trust, the Deputy Premier cannot be a director of this
company.
021 14:35
My second question to the Deputy Premier follows. Since 2003, the Deputy Premier billed over
$2 300 in ministerial expense claims for goods and services obtained at Grama’s Bake Shop. The
Members’ Conflict of Interest Act clearly states that no member of the executive council may engage
in the management of a business carried on by a corporation, and that no member should be making
decisions that result in personal benefit. The Deputy Premier’s business received over $2 300 in
ministerial expenses. Can the Deputy Premier tell us why he broke the law?
Hon. D. Graham: I can inform all members of the House that the company is in blind trust. I
certainly do not do any day-to-day operations. I am a full-time MLA, and I certainly take my job
as minister very seriously. I do, on the odd occasion, on a Sunday, have a meal there.
Mr. Arseneault: My final question for today is to the Deputy Premier. Given that he is the director
of a business, in contravention of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, and given that he is
funneling taxpayers’ dollars to his business through ministerial expense claims, which is also in
contravention of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, has the Deputy Premier discussed these
matters with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner? Did he receive permission from the
commissioner to undertake these activities?
Hon. D. Graham: I certainly meet with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner on a yearly basis, and
I have done so since the Act was put together. The commissioner is certainly very well aware that
the company is in blind trust. We do, actually, have a discussion every year about how the company
is operated, and about how successful it has been. I must remind the members that I started that
ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 9/10
company in 1981. In September of this year it will be 25 years. I think that is pretty good—25 years,
for a small business.
RCMP
Mr. Allaby: My question is to the Minister of Public Safety. Is the minister aware that the RCMP
house and office on Deer Island has been condemned?
Hon. Mr. Steeves: That would be under the day-to-day operation, which is an RCMP matter. I leave
that entirely up to the RCMP, whether the house is condemned, or whether they have moved to new
offices, or whatever.
Mr. Allaby: This is the minister who is responsible for public safety in New Brunswick. I should
think he would have an interest in the matter. Deer Island is isolated. Then the RCMP office and
house are housed in the same building, and the building has been condemned, with the materials
moved to St. George. The RCMP officer and her husband have to find another location in which to
reside. This is an intolerable situation. This minister is responsible for public safety, and he is
shuffling off his responsibilities to the RCMP. What is he going to do to ensure that the RCMP have
the resources to fix this problem?
Hon. Mr. Steeves: I am so pleased that he has asked what we are going to do to make sure that they
will have the resources. I might add that when you were in government, you reduced the resources
to the RCMP. I am pleased to say that since this government has taken office, we have improved the
RCMP and their resources. I will tell you that it is a day-to-day operation. The RCMP will make
those decisions, and if they feel they want to put another office on that island, then they will do that.
That is a day-to-day operation. I can assure the member—and he knows full well—that they did not
move because of a lack of resources. They moved because there was something wrong with the
building.
Mr. Allaby: This is the whole point. We have a situation here. The minister, first of all, says that
he does not have anything to do with the day-to-day operations. Then, he comments on the
resources, or lack thereof. Now, he says that they did not move for lack of resources, but because
the building has been condemned. Where are the resources to fix the problem? You cannot talk out
of both sides of your mouth. What is the minister going to do to ensure that the RCMP get this
problem fixed?
Hon. Mr. Steeves: First of all, I did not say . . . I said that they had the resources. We did improve
the resources. It was your government that took the resources away, many years ago.
ORAL QUESTIONS 22 QUESTIONS ORALES
May 2, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 2 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\28 2006-05-02 BL\28 2006-05-02 BL.wpd 10/10
022 14:40
I will tell you that we have put them back in, but it is a day-to-day operation. They did not move
because of a lack of resources. They moved because the building was condemned. It is entirely up
to the RCMP to do that and to make those decisions.
Support Orders
Mr. Lamrock: My question is, again, for the Minister of Justice. Last week, I raised an issue that
has been raised by family lawyers across this province about the fact that too many custodial parents
are not getting the help they and their kids need, because this government has unacceptably long
wait times to get interim support orders in place. At the time, the Minister of Justice was not able
to tell me what his department is doing, other than to say that it is very, very concerned.
I want to bring another suggestion forward. Some family lawyers have suggested changing the law
to allow for real costs against those who prolong the process, those parents who drag out the process
to try to get out of paying. It would not cost the government any money, but it might be a
disincentive to things that tie up the court system. Between this and masters, we have suggested two
ideas that do not cost any money, but which might help parents and kids get the money they deserve.
My question to the minister is this: If we pledge our support to help get it done, will we see
legislation before this legislative session ends?
Hon. Mr. Fitch: I am very pleased to answer the question posed by the Justice Critic. When I took
over the portfolio, I met with a number of people who are involved in the family courts. I sat down
and talked with Judge Tuck and talked at length about the conditions and the length of time people
waited to get into court. We know about the family court’s federal appointment, and we have
exchanged letters back and forth with the minister in Ottawa.
Certainly, if opportunity allows when the House work finishes, if the critic wants to come with this
minister to Ottawa and pair with me, if the opposition wants to pair with us to do some of the work
that is for the betterment of the province, I would be more than happy to consider some of the
suggestions that have been brought forward. Our aims are the same in making sure that the public
interest is promoted here in areas that are of mutual concern for all New Brunswickers.