Nothing could be further from the truth - literally

Bill Westcott, who, writing in the Compass under a headline like "Treated like hostages in our own country", is no stranger to hyperbole; certainly not when he claims:

Newfoundland contributes four times the amount per capita to the Canadian coffers, (Stats Canada documented), and still there are no price tags on our doors.

As a certain politician is overly fond of saying: nothing could be further from the truth. And yes, it's Stats Canada documented.

First off, Westcott omits the second half of his multiplication. ("four times the amount per capita" as compared to what or whom?) But it doesn't really matter, as you'll see below.

Statistics Canada has a wonderful set of figures, Table 384-0004, Government sector revenue and expenditure, provincial economic accounts, annual (dollars). (2004 is the most recent year; hopefully there'll be an update soon.)

In 2004, Newfoundland and Labrador collectively, through all revenue sources — personal and corporate income taxes, GST, customs duties, EI and CPP premiums, and other miscellaneous sources of federal revenue — contributed about $2.3-billion to the federal coffers. Nothing to sneeze at, to be sure.

In that same year, the federal government spent — in federal salaries, procurement, contracts and capital costs, transfers to the provincial and local governments, grants and contributions, federal income-support payments, and a pro-rated share of national expenses like debt-servicing — nearly $4.8-billion in, or in respect of, Newfoundland and Labrador. (Excluding the pro-ratio of national expenses, the amount spent in the province, or transferred to its government or residents, still topped $4-billion.

The difference, what the bean-counters call the "net lending", was nearly $2.4-billion in favour of the province as a whole: that is, the provincial government and population received $2.4-billion more from the federal government than the province, collectively, contributed in federal revenues.

Calculated per-capita, using StatsCan table 051-0001 as the source for population, federal revenues collected from Newfoundland and Labrador were, in fact, the lowest of the ten provinces and the aggregated three territories:

Federal government revenue per-capita,
by province (and three territories combined), 2004:

Terr  $9,465.10
AB  $7,858.24
ON  $6,956.01
Canada  $6,247.78 
BC  $5,710.02
QC  $5,455.59
SK  $5,213.65
PE  $5,207.58
NS  $4,938.20
MB  $4,937.31
NB  $4,609.88
NL  $4,537.82

The only thing that "Newfoundland" [sic], by comparison, "contributes four times the amount per capita" than, would be some imaginary province that had per-capita federal revenues of just over $1100.00 in 2004.

Furthermore, federal government expenditures per-capita in NL were third-highest among the ten provinces; fourth if you include the aggregated territories:

Federal government expenditures per-capita,
by province (and three territories combined), 2004:

Terr  $30,989.00
PE  $10,313.62
NS   $9,811.37
NL   $9,245.78
NB   $8,878.04
MB   $8,160.79
SK   $8,055.18
Canada   $5,944.43 
QC   $5,751.14
BC   $5,276.79
ON   $5,264.26
AB   $5,097.99

And the net balance, by province or territory, was as follows (figures in brackets are negative; i.e., that the province in question collectively received more benefit from the federal government than it collectively paid in federal revenues):

Federal government "net lending" per-capita,
by province (and three territories combined), 2004:

AB    $2,794.24
ON    $1,673.87
BC      $450.12
Canada      $316.57 
QC     $(281.24)
SK   $(2,783.23)
MB   $(3,144.02)
NB   $(4,249.55)
NL   $(4,613.22)
NS   $(4,782.55)
PE   $(5,258.35)
Terr  $(20,759.34)

The revenue, expenditure, and balance figures are evolving over time, and starting in 1994 — no, Danny, not in 2004 — the trend of increasingly lopsided "net lending" figures in Newfoundland and Labrador reversed itself. In actual (not inflation-adjusted) dollars, the "net lending" figure was -$6,404.17 in 1994; it has shown a more-or-less steady progression towards balance since then, but is still a long ways off. (The trend-line from 1994 to 2004, projected outwards, would result in balance in about 2030.)

And, at least at last count, Newfoundland and Labrador was at the same rank among the provinces, in terms of per-capita contribution to federal coffers, as it has been since stats began keeping in 1981: 10th of 10.

Someone get Doc Keefe a math

St. John’s Mayor Dennis O’Keefe, like any good Townie Tory Newfoundland Nationalist, has never let the facts get in the way of a good myth, and isn’t about to start doing so now.

He tells the CBC’s Ramona Dearing, in the top-of-Crosstalk banter:

There’s no doubt in my mind that over the years we have never, ever been treated fairly when it comes to federal employment in this province. I was told recently that on a per-capita basis we are number last when it comes to federal employment in Canada.

FOR. THE. UMP. TEENTH. TIME:

In 2011, the federal public service presence in Newfoundland and Labrador averaged 7442. (Averaged, because it fluctuates from month to month.) The total provincial population in the July estimate was 510,578. The per-capita federal civil service presence – you can repeat the basic arithmetic at home – works out to 1.5%.

Only Nova Scotia (2.6%), PEI (2.57%) and New Brunswick (2.2%) had higher per-capita federal employment. Newfoundland and Labrador is not only NOT “number last” in this regard, the province has a larger per-capita federal civil service presence than Ontario or Quebec or any other province that isn’t a capital-M Maritime one.

Moreover, the metropolitan St. John’s area, with about 38% of the provincial population, was home to over 5000 of those federal civil servants when Statscan measured civil service presence by metropolitan area in September 2011. That works out to 2/3 of the total federal employees in the province. (St. John’s also has at least 70% of the direct provincial government civil service work-force, in case any mayors who aren’t named Dennis O’Keefe are counting.)

Among its urban peers, the St. John’s metro area has a per-capita federal civil service presence of 2.6%, which places it fifth among the 33 Census Metropolitan Areas in the country. Only Ottawa-Gatineau (10.8%), Halifax (4.3%), Kingston (4.3%), and Victoria (2.9%) have a larger per-capita federal civil service presence than St. John’s.

Data sources: Statistics Canada CANSIM Tables 183-0002, 183-0003 (government employment); 051-0001 (provincial population), 051-0046 (population of Census Metropolitan Areas.)

Lies, damn lies, and damner lies

The PC Party Bull Sheet contains the following howler:

A Progressive Conservative government in its second term will:

demand that the Government of Canada situate more federal offices and jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, which has fewer per capita than any other province

[Emphasis added; original emphasis removed.]

That assertion is blatantly wrong. Whoever insisted on its presence in the platform document is stupid, or a liar, or possibly both.

The following table* shows the population of Canada and the ten provinces, the number of federal civil servants employed in each, and what that works out to as a percent of the total population (= per capita × 100)

             Pop.     fed.jobs   As % of pop.

PE          138,571      3,776   2.72%
NS          933,923     24,277   2.60
NB          748,997     15,036   2.01
NL          508,832      7,357   1.45
MB        1,179,026     16,944   1.44
ON       12,706,493    162,807   1.28
Canada   32,701,551    395,057   1.21
QC        7,663,823     82,271   1.07
SK          986,886      9,868   1.00
BC        4,324,796     38,795   0.90
AB        3,406,407     28,534   0.84

Newfoundland and Labrador does not have "fewer [federal jobs] per capita than any other province."

In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador has more federal jobs per capita, not only than the all-Canada figure, but more per-capita than all but three other provinces. And that includes more than Ontario or Quebec.

What other lies, or stupidity, or both, lurk in the Bull Sheet?

---

* Population from CANSIM table 051-0005; employment from CANSIM table 183-0002; data for 12 months ending March 2007, annualized average.

El Dorado (I)

[In the post-Confederation era] Newfoundlanders again eagerly embraced that curious intoxicating myth which runs like a thread through their history—that their land, underneath its harsh and unproductive exterior, is really a shining El Dorado, awaiting only the right leader to unlock its treasures. Flights of fancy about the new province's 'vast economic potential,' the alleged existence of which was used to justify the expenditure of public funds on a variety of highly dubious private development schemes, thus became the rhetorical stock-in-trade of the governing Liberal party, whose leader [Smallwood] excelled even Edward Morris and Richard Squires in his ability to tell the people what they loved to hear.

— S.J.R. Noel, Politics in Newfoundland, 1971, p. 276

Plus ça change.

"We got more resources per capita than any other province," Ted Sheares said within moments of introducing himself. "The federal government has robbed, plundered, and wasted it all. We're poorer off today, in a sense, than we were when we joined Confederation."

So encountered John Stackhouse, as surely as a screech-in, on p. 99 of Timbit Nation, his account of his 2000 hitch-hiking trip across Canada.

Some of the myth-makers don't even bother with the "per capita" qualifier.

"We got more resources than any other province."

With or without the qualifier, the statement is wrong.

Between 1961 and 2004 inclusive, the years for which stats are available, the value of mineral production in Newfoundland and Labrador averaged 3.8% of the Canadian total. The province typically ranked seventh of the ten provinces, which, not too coincidentally, is exactly where it ranks in landmass.

At times, as recently as 1993, the provincial minerals sector has bottomed out at a meagre 1.5% of the entire Canadian total.

In 2004, the value of NL's mineral output ranked behind, in descending order, Ontario — yes, Ontario, the Canadian mining champion for ten consecutive years now — Saskatchewan, B.C., Quebec, Manitoba, and New Brunswick, and only slightly ahead of Alberta's non-petroleum minerals industry, which was worth only $15-million less than NL.

All things being equal geologically, with 4.1% of the Canadian landmass, you should expect NL to account for about 4.1% of the Canadian mining industry. However, for nearly half of that period, NL's share of Canadian mineral production has been lower than its share of the Canadian landmass, this, despite things not being equal: some provinces, including NL, have more-favoured geology over large swaths of territory for finding economically significant mineral deposits. (P.E.I. accounts for more than 0% of the Canadian landmass, but 0% of its mining industry.)

Even measured against population, NL's mineral production hasn't always stood out. For much of the 1980s and 1990s, the value of the industry, as a share of the all-Canada total, was actually lower than the province's share of the population. And even in 2004, the per-capita value of the mines and minerals sector in NL was less than that of Saskatchewan, and not that far ahead of New Brunswick's.

Why hasn't the natural wealth of Newfoundland and Labrador turned the province into a fabulous new, northern, El Dorado?

First, as noted above, while large in absolute value, compared to any other part of the country, Newfoundland and Labrador's endowment of natural resources is nothing out of the ordinary or unexpected. (Labrador, taken alone, would be so on a per-capita basis, though not by area; Newfoundland, taken alone, would be resource-poor without Labrador, which accounts for nearly 100% of the provincial mining industry these days.)

Second, provincial politics may well have reduced the value of the industry.

And no, this is not the "not one spoonful" argument about secondary processing. In fact, the value added to raw mineral output in NL, as a ratio of the value of the raw mineral resource, has ranked at or above the comparable figure for Quebec since about 1980, and in recent years, has been near the middle of the all-Canada pack.

Instead, one has to question whether the province has made itself a good place for mining companies to invest in, given that the provincial resource endowment has no shortage of competition, not just from elsewhere in Canada or the North American continent, but especially from developing countries with huge advantages in terms of labour costs and regulatory requirements (or lack thereof). A deposit may be worth a billion dollars in its raw state, and the province may set a royalty of 5% on it, but if no one is willing to develop that project, the value to the provincial treasury, and economy, is zero: zero percent of anything is zero.

Finally, in the modern economy, there is virtually no correlation between the wealth of a society and its natural resource endowment. What natural resources do Hong Kong, Great Britain, or the Netherlands possess? Or, by contrast, why aren't countries such as Nigeria, Peru, or Angola doing so much better economically?

In fact, in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, the El Dorado myth may have had a pernicious economic effect. What incentive is there for economic diversification, for entrepreneurship, for sound management of the provincial finances and public services, if there is always lurking, just around the corner, some new megaproject (or, in the case of the so-called "Lower Churchill", and endlessly-recycled one) that will be The Great Salvation?

A.P. Herbert semi-famously wagged:

Labrador may become another Alaska, because it has the largest iron ore deposits in the world waiting to be exploited, and they will be a terrific thing. Whoever runs them, Labrador will be an old age pension for Newfoundland for a very long time….

In an earlier age, an anonymous economic philosopher said "Cape St. Mary's pays for all."

As long as there's a Cape St. Mary's, a Lower Churchill, a mine, a myth, an old age pension in the form of some natural resource megaproject of short duration and dubious overall benefit, the provincial economy will continue on its current spiral.

It is lots of little things, and lots of non-natural-resource things, which will pay for all, and which will be the old-age pension.

Instead, we get the usual platitudes about "potential" such as the ones Noel discredited; the myth-makers persist in weaving their myths, no matter what the objective statistics might say; and the politicians, including Smallwood: The Next Generation, keep telling his for-now adoring public everything they think they want to hear.

The track not taken

A few months back, the Fraser Institute issued a laughable report, ranking Danny Williams as the third-best fiscal performer among Premiers, in terms of managing their respective provinces’ finances.

The pallbearer government of Kathy Dunderdale, in the document produced for the annual pre-budget consultation farce, proves just how undeserved that reputation is.

This chart, taken from the document, shows the provincial net debt (columns, scale at left) and net debt per capita (line, scale at right.) Yes, Virginia, the third-best fiscal performer, faced with unprecedented, windfall, and – as we were reminded over and over again during Equalization Wars I and II – one-time offshore oil revenues, managed to go reverse his own brief interval of debt-reduction, and left office presiding over a government whose debt had reverted to its old habit of increasing.

But what if?

What if… instead of blowing the unprecedented, windfall, one-time oil revenues, Danny Williams had chosen a different financial track? Most of the windfall during the Williams years, realized through financial arrangements that pre-dated his entry into elected politics, was spent buying or renting love. No problem was too small to be solved by throwing public money, unprecedented, windfall money, down the problematic hole.

But what if he and his government had picked the more conservative, responsible, and prudent course, and used the bulk of those one-time revenues to make a lasting change in the provincial bottom line?

This chart, identical in every other respect to the one in the budget consultation document, shows what would have happened if Danny Williams-Government, instead of spending billions on happiness, had taken a radically cautious approach. In this scenario, one quarter of the offshore revenues, as well as 100% of any other public revenues such as mining royalties, general taxation, and federal transfers, are available for spreading the love. The remaining three-quarters of just the oil revenues are used to pay down debt:
The red parts of the column are “ghost” debt – debt that would have been paid off in this alternative scnarious, but which instead remained on the books. (Ignore the blue line from the original graph, for now.) By fiscal year 2009-10, the net debt in fact would have fallen off the bottom of the original graph’s scale. The fuller picture, with a vertical-scale baseline of zero, looks like this:
And what about that other important measure, net debt per capita? The blue line, transposed from the original chart, shows reality. The red line shows an alternative reality, assuming the same population trends as observed over the past decade or so, but also assuming the same super-cautious and aggressive fiscal strategy of getting the province out of debt, fast.

There was, of course, nothing responsible or prudent about Danny Williams’ tenure as Premier, and nothing, other than name, that was conservative about it. He chose a different track.

That is why a government that collected over $9-billion in oil revenues during its tenure still presides over a $9-billion net provincial debt.

And that is why the provincial net debt per capita this fiscal year was over $17,000 and rising, when in the alternative universe it would have been $7,000 and falling, and falling fast.

If recent trends in the alternative scenario keep up, the provincial net debt would have been wiped out by the middle of the current decade, freeing up 100% of the offshore revenues for other public purposes. (In an even more-aggressive alternative reality, in which 100% of the oil revenues since January 1, 2004, were used to pay off debt, the provincial net debt would have been $0 by the end of this calendar year.)

This is the record of the same crew who are now contemplating adding, at a minimum, another $4-billion to that debt — over $7800 for every many woman and child alive in the province today — to build the Danny Williams Memorial White Elephant. That would completely wipe out the modest debt reduction that was realized during the latter part of the last decade, put the burden of paying it off on electrical ratepayers, and the risk of cost overruns or interest rate shock on provincial taxpayers.

And they are doing so at a time when interest rates are poised to rise, and when the provincial population has resumed its decades-long downward trend, so that fewer and fewer people will be paying off more and more public borrowing.

So, you see the light at the end of the tunnel?

Yeah. That would be the train.

Crosbie's version

It has been interesting, and not a little disturbing, to listen to John Crosbie’s attempts at historical revisionism over the past 24 hours.

Last night on VOCM Nightline with Linda Swain, he said:

“Myself and Mr. Roland Martin… have been involved in the discussions and negotiations over these issues of equalization and the Atlantic Accord for the period from the original agreements in 1985 and 86, and for a period of some seven or eight years with the federal government, led by Mr. Martin, to try to persuade them that they weren't carrying out the full intention of the original Atlantic Accords; which was that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, with respect to the revenues from offshore oil and gas, were to receive those revenues, in full, and were to be the primary beneficiaries of the offshore oil and gas resources, without any deductions such as the federal government was instituting with respect to equalization. They were deducting, from the royalties and revenues that we were supposed to get from the offshore, the amounts we were receiving for equalization, which was quite improper in our opinion.”

And today, on CBC Radio On the Go, he continued, unchallenged, in that vein:

“…for eight years while the Liberals were in power they weren’t following what we thought had been agreed in these Atlantic Accords of ‘85 and ’86…

What we’re [Crosbie and Martin] attempting to do is persuade the Prime Minister that the Accord has been unilaterally changed by one party, namely the federal government, and the change is not in the wording of the Accord, but a change introduced in the budget as it affects the equalization formula. That changes the equalization formula, contradicts the intention of the Atlantic Accords, and changes the objective. The objective and intention of the Atlantic Accord was to see that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia received revenues from their offshore oil and gas resources without any deduction from equalization payments or any other federal payments, that we should be allowed to get the revenues, that was promised in the original Accords, without the federal government clawing back anything, federal revenues we’re getting simply because we’re now getting revenues from the offshore resources.”

First of all, let’s put a big myth to rest.

It is a falsehood, it is a fiction, it is a fabrication, fairy tale, and fantasy, that the “principal beneficiary” clause of the Atlantic Accord was ever intended, as the Newfoundland historical revisionists, Crosbie included, now argue, to provide that the province would receive 100% of the public revenues associated with offshore oil and gas activity, and that the federal government receive none.

The Atlantic Accords make it very clear that the provinces, and only the provinces, can collect royalties from their offshore developments. It makes it equally clear, however, that the federal and provincial governments would also collect other taxes and revenue streams, of general application, which derive from the taxable economic activity associated with the offshore.

Instead, as was, briefly, clear at the time, the Atlantic Accord intended that the province as a whole – not just the provincial treasury – was to be the “principal beneficiary”.

No one has yet offered any evidence that this larger, and correct, notion of “principal beneficiary” has ever been violated.

All could have been made clear from the start. But the oft-cited phrase “principal beneficiary” was neither legislated (it appears in the Accord, but not in the enabling legislation), nor even defined.

Furthermore, it is also a falsehood, a fiction, a fabrication, fairy tale, and fantasy, that the “objective and intention” of the Atlantic Accords was that the provinces of Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, could, would, or should collect their offshore oil and gas revenues with no corresponding reduction in net federal transfers, forever.

How do we know?

Because it’s written right into the Atlantic Accords!

In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, the “Part I” offset payments were to last for a period of twelve years. The “Part II” offset payments, which topped up the Part I payment, were for 90 cents on the dollar – not dollar for dollar – and after five years were to be reduced by ten per cent per annum. Those provisions are written right into Article 39 of the Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord, and Part V of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Similar provisions apply in Nova Scotia through Article 27 of the Nova Scotia Atlantic Accord and Part V of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.

If John Crosbie doesn’t believe it, he can ask John Crosbie.

In one of the many failings of the Vic Young Blame Canada Commission, John Crosbie was assigned to review the political legacy of… John Crosbie.

John Crosbie – the researcher for the Royal Commission, that is – wrote in his report:

Under Section 39, both governments recognized that “there should not be a dollar for dollar loss of equalization payments as a result of offshore revenues fl owing to the Province.” To achieve this, Canada agreed to establish special new “Equalization Offset Payments” to commence on April 1st of the first fiscal year following the attainment of cumulative production of 15 million barrels of offshore oil or the energy equivalent of natural gas. Thus there are now two parts to the equalization offset payments promises of the Government of Canada, first, already in place under the general rules of the Equalization Program for all provinces offset payments would be made equivalent to the loss of any fiscal equalization payments that resulted from any future changes to the floor provisions of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, as amended 1982. These provisions applied with respect to the phase-out of equalization entitlements generally if the changes were detrimental to Newfoundland and this general equalization provision has the effect of providing Newfoundland, while its per capita fiscal capacity is 70 per cent or less of the national average, with 95 per cent protection from year-over-year decreases in equalization, from whatever causes, on the “floor protection” basis already in effect under normal equalization rules in 1982. This is a commitment that if under the formula the Province will receive in a year 95 per cent or less of the equalization payments it received the previous year, then the decline would not exceed 95 per cent. To this would be added the new offset payments protections of the Accord.

The additional equalization protection that the Accord was designed to provide was that “Canada will make offset payments (Part II) equivalent to 90 per cent of any decrease in the fisscal equalization payment to Newfoundland in respect of the fiscal year in comparison with the payment for the immediately preceding fiscal year, as calculated under the prevailing Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, as amended from time to time, and taking into account both years, the offset component entitlement already available under Part One. In the fifth fiscal year after the threshold offshore production of 15 million barrels of offshore production of oil or the energy equivalent of natural gas was achieved, the new Part II offset payment rate would begin to be reduced by 10 percentage points in each subsequent year in addition to the original 90 per cent. The effect is that in year one Part II provisions would pay Newfoundland 90 per cent of the remaining decline not covered by Part I, or approximately 4.5 per cent which would decline to zero per cent for Part II payments in year 12.

If John Crosbie doesn’t accept the word of John Crosbie, perhaps he should go back and ask the Minister of Justice of the day some embarassing questions.

Why was “principal beneficiary” never defined in the Accord?

Why was the phrase not imported into the enabling legislation?

And why, if the “objective and intention” of the “principal beneficiary” clause was that there be no dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal transfers due to increasing provincial offshore revenues, was the legislation not drafted to give it effect, instead of drafted the way it was.

The Minister of Justice, after all, is responsible for overseeing the legal affairs of the Government of Canada, including legislative drafting.

And from September 17, 1984, to June 29, 1986, the period during which both provinces’ Accords were negotiated, and Newfoundland and Labrador’s was signed, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada was a St. John’s lawyer named John Crosbie.

That is the same John Crosbie who negotiated and drafted the Atlantic Accords which were applied and honoured in full, ever after, including by the former federal Liberal government that he felt compelled to take potshots at.

The Atlantic Accords operated, and operate, exactly as John Crosbie intended, and legislated, back in 1985 and 1986.

Indeed, the only government which has ever breached that black letter of the Atlantic Accord is the provincial government of Danny Williams, who tried last year to do an end-run around s. 12(2) of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and install Andy Wells, for reasons that only Danny Williams knows, as Chairman of the Offshore Petroleum Board.

So perhaps one of these John Crosbies – the researcher or the former federal Minister of Justice and regional political fixer for Newfoundland and Labrador in the federal cabinet – can set the current John Crosbie straight.

John Crosbie is entitled to his own opinions. And Flying Spaghetti Monster knows, he’s opinionated.

But John Crosbie is not entitled to his own facts.

He is only entitled to the same facts as everyone else. He does not get to make them up on the spot.

Nor is he entitled to a free ride from the media who accept, uncritically and without question, the Newfoundland nationalist revisionist — and wholly fabricated — version of history and the law which he, and others, have been spouting, for purely partisan reasons, in the last four years.

GDP

It is most interesting to note Our Dear Finance Minister (and strangely, Our Dear Premier is nowhere in sight) praising up the provincial GDP:

The GDP forecast for this year has been revised upward to 8.9 per cent from 8.5 per cent because of stronger domestic demand, as evidenced by solid gains in retail sales and housing starts.

And not for the first time. As Minister Marshall noted in February, shortly after Williams Government ended Our moratorium on any discussion of the Gross Domestic Product:

Retail sales are up at the highest level ever, incomes are up, our credit ratings have never been higher, we are leading the country in labour productivity and GDP growth, and with more of our people working than ever before.

Interesting, and, in the Church of Danny, entirely heretical:

Premiers Tobin, Tulk and Grimes have all heralded the fact that we have been leading the country in GDP growth? What a smoke screen that is!

What does GDP really mean? By definition it means the value of all goods and services produced in the province during the year. But always remember something about GDP: it means the value of what is produced in the province not the value of what stays in the province.

Bobby Kennedy defined it best just before his assassination in 1968 when he said "GDP means everything ... except that which makes life worthwhile." [Board of Trade (2001) 11:1]

* * *

"After thirteen years in office, the Liberals have nothing to show for their efforts but decline. All the GDP growth they've been boasting about isn't generating a single dollar of new revenues for the province. Ths budget's revenue situation reflects what we're seeing in the latest census figures: that Newfoundland and Labrador is in sharp decline," said Williams. [Press Release (2002) 3:21]

* * *

However, when I hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and - and I did refer to him as the Minister of Industry, Trade and no Rural Development, and I apologize to him for that. That was done in debate, and I should have said the Minister of Industry, Trade and very little Rural Development. Anyway, every time he gets on his feet, he talks about how wonderful things are. How great he art. In fact, he talks about the GDP, and how we have the highest GDP in the country in GDP growth. He talks about the strength of the economy. He talks about how employment numbers are going up. What does that mean to the ordinary, average Newfoundlander? I cannot believe that he stands on his feet and talks about how great things are and how wonderful things are.

Oil and gas: Our oil is the greatest contributor to GDP. What does that mean? It means nothing. They put it on a ship and it leaves Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not processed here. Nothing happens to it here. It drives up our GDP number. So what? It comes in, it goes into holding tanks in Whiffen Head, and then it is shipped out. It is not processed in this Province. Gone! [Dansard, (2002) 3: 19]

* * *

Mr. Speaker, the problem is, we have had to sit here for two sessions of this House of Assembly and see the former Minister of Rural Development, and current minister, get up and talk about how wonderful everything is in this Province. How great thou art. How wonderful everything is in this Province. Jobs are being created everywhere. The GDP is going through the roof. Everything is wonderful.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may move on to GDP - and I will not deal with this at any great length because it was handled very capably by the Opposition House Leader during Question Period. Bobby Kennedy said before his assassination, "...GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile." No truer statement was ever said. We have had it shoved down our throats for the last four years.

When Premier Tobin was here, he heralded the GDP. It was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The GDP is going up, leading the nation, our worries are over; highest GDP again this year. Don’t worry about it Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as long as that GDP is going up we have no problems. It is a meaningless number. It is smoke and mirrors. All it does is mislead the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Ask the people in Gaskiers what the GDP means to them. Ask the people in Ramea what GDP means to them. Ask the people in La Scie or Rushoon what an increased GDP means to them. It means absolutely nothing. Ask the 40,000 people who have left Newfoundland and Labrador what GDP means to them. It is absolutely meaningless. [Dansard, (2002) 5:21]

* * *

Our government boasts that we have led the country in GDP growth in three of the past five years, but what do Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to show for it? They had the highest rate of unemployment in the country, at 18 per cent. They have among the highest per capita debt, the highest out-migration and tax burden in the country, and they have among the lowest per capita income, birth rate and fiscal strength. [Dansard, (2003) 3:19]

* * *

We hear today about the wonderful GDP, how our Province is growing, how we are the toast of the country. The Globe and Mail is talking about the great GDP we have. What does that mean to the fishermen in the gallery? It means absolutely nothing, because their lives are being devastated by this particular closure and how the government can get up and talk about a GDP. We have to talk about what is important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. [Dansard, (2003) 4:30]

The Word of Our Dan. It is written.

We Know What We’re Fighting For…

…and that would be Autonomy! one federal civil service job at a time!

Tom Hedderson, Minister of Sustaining the Holy Fight Against Federalism, said today:

“Federal presence in Newfoundland and Labrador is an issue our government is committed to fighting for so this province can get the kind of funding other provinces have received.”

And what “kind of funding” would that be? For starters, in most other provinces, the “kind” is less than what NL gets. The following figures are from fiscal year 2006/07:

Federal payroll ($000) and Payroll per capita ($)

           Payroll   Per-capita

Canada $ 25,150,751   $ 769.99
NL        $ 430,849   $ 845.79
PEI       $ 208,062  $1,502.11
NS      $ 1,504,707  $1,610.75
NB        $ 861,778  $1,150.53
QC      $ 4,962,549   $ 648.02
ON     $ 10,922,817   $ 860.42
MB        $ 970,076   $ 823.46
SK        $ 579,023   $ 587.21
AB      $ 1,694,545   $ 499.24
BC      $ 2,497,597   $ 578.44

Adjusted for population, only the three Maritime provinces, and, at least in that year, by a nose, Ontario, have a larger federal civil service monetary presence than NL does.

Furthermore – and this bears repeating ad nauseam because people are convinced that the truth is otherise – NL has a larger share of the federal government workforce, and of the federal government payroll, than of the national population. Really. Honest.

Percentage share of…

      FedGov jobs  FedGov payroll   Canadian population

NL      1.9%            1.7%           1.6%
PEI     1.0%            0.8%           0.4%
NS      6.1%            6.0%           2.9%
NB      3.8%            3.4%           2.3%
QC     20.8%           19.7%          23.4%
ON     41.2%           43.4%          38.9%
MB      4.3%            3.9%           3.6%
SK      2.5%            2.3%           3.0%
AB      7.2%            6.7%          10.4%
BC      9.8%            9.9%          13.2%

Does Hedderson really want Newfoundland and Labrador to have “the kind of funding other provinces have received”?

If so, in order for all provinces to have, adjusted for population, a perfectly equal share of federal government jobs and payroll — which is the only real way any province could have “the kind of funding other provinces have received” — then $38.6-million in last year’s federal government payroll, and nearly 1,200 federal civil service jobs, would have to have been transferred out of Newfoundland and Labrador to the federally under-staffed provinces, Quebec and the West.

(Population data is from StatsCan Table 051-0005; federal government employment data is from Table 183-0002; time period considered is fiscal year 2006-07.)

Grassroots

To put the truly astonishing Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal leadership vote into perspective, here is a table of "open" party leadership contests in Canada, both federal and provincial, since the Parti Québécois leadership race of 1985.

These include party leaderships decided by open, one-member-one-vote member- or supporter-based voting, or conventions which were open to all party members. It also includes party leaderships which were geographically weighted one-member-one-vote, but excludes internal party votes for delegated leadership conventions.

Colours follow the traditional partisan colour scheme, with the addition of purple for Quebec sovereigntist parties, and green for non-"Conservative" right-of-centre parties.

The "votes" figure takes the total number of valid votes on the largest ballot (or count, in the cast of preferential ballots.) The per-capita figure expresses the total number of leadership votes in the largest ballot as a percentage of the voters list in the province (or Canada) at the chronologically nearest federal election. (One exception: the 1990 Ontario PC leadership is expressed as a percentage of the 1990 Ontario provincial voters list.)

Since 1985, the average open provincial party leadership has attracted about 1.5% of that province's electors. At 5.8%, as a pure exercise in voter-mobilization, the NL Liberal leadership is a runaway success.

Additions and corrections are welcome.

Despite the wrinkles and gremlins, the NL Liberal Party, and the teams behind the five candidates, deserve full credit for driving this leadership process, which, adjusted for population, is one of the biggest exercises of grassroots party democracy in recent Canadian history.

Party	Jurisdiction	Year	Votes	Per-capita
PC	AB	2006	144,289	6.2%
Liberal	NL	2013	23,873	5.8%
Liberal	PEI	1996	4,329	4.4%
PC	AB	1992	78,251	4.2%
Liberal	PEI	2003	3,969	3.6%
PC	AB	2011	78,176	3.1%
NDP	SK	2001	19,465	2.8%
Liberal	NB	2012	14,672	2.5%
Parti Québécois	QC	1985	96,974	2.1%
Parti Québécois	QC	2005	105,259	1.8%
Liberal	BC	2011	54,879	1.8%
NDP	SK	2009	9,444	1.3%
NDP	SK	2013	8,719	1.2%
PC	MB	2006	9,143	1.1%
Liberal	NS	1992	6,998	1.0%
Bloc Québécois	QC	1997	48,437	0.9%
Wild Rose	AB	2009	16,400	0.7%
PC	NB	2008	4,029	0.7%
NDP	BC	2011	20,016	0.6%
Social Credit	BC	1993	14,833	0.6%
Liberal	AB	1994	11,004	0.6%
PC	ON	2002	44,188	0.6%
Canadian Alliance	Can	2000	120,557	0.6%
Saskatchewan	SK	1998	3,344	0.5%
PC	SK	1994	3,298	0.5%
PC	NS	1995	2,985	0.4%
Conservative	Can	2004	97,397	0.4%
Liberal	Can	2013	104,552	0.4%
Liberal	AB	1998	7,636	0.4%
Canadian Alliance	Can	2002	88,228	0.4%
PC	ON	2004	32,390	0.4%
Liberal	AB	2011	8,640	0.3%
PC	ON	2009	25,429	0.3%
NDP	Can	2002	58,202	0.3%
Liberal	BC	1993	6,540	0.3%
NDP	Can	2012	65,108	0.3%
PC	ON	1990	15,850	0.3%
Bloc Québécois	QC	2011	12,846	0.2%
Liberal	AB	2008	4,860	0.2%
PC	Can	1998	30,100	0.2%
NDP	ON	2009	11,150	0.1%
Liberal	AB	2004	2,733	0.1%
ADQ	QC	2009	3,912	0.1%
Wild Rose	AB	2005	1,128	0.1%

Interlinear B

Some further interlinear notes and queries, in an attempt to decipher the Premier's interview with The Labradorian this week:

DW: Unfortunately when we looked at that, [the auditorium had to go into] the tier two category. But on the other hand in last year’s budget we made a significant contribution to culture generally in this province, to the island and in Labrador, for more general initiatives. But this [auditorium] was a specific initiative.

The Rooms is in St. John’s. The Magnetic North Theatre Festival will be held in St. John’s. And the auditorium for Happy Valley-Goose Bay is just as “general”, given the vast area it would serve, as any of the $2.4-million in cultural initiatives, centred in St. John’s, that the provincial government announced in last year’s budget.

DW: The cost had gone up significantly and at that particular time I guess quite simply we had to say from a money perspective that we couldn’t afford it. From a culture perspective we can’t afford not to do it either so it’s something that’s under consideration now. What we were hoping to do, leading into the last federal election, was to lever up the federal government to see if we could get them to increase their contribution. So as well there was some strategic political consideration going on there and that’s a very straight answer.

Why is it that provincial spending in Labrador is always contingent on access to federal funds?

Has Labrador ceased to be part of the province? Does Labrador not contribute to the provincial treasury? Has Labrador become a federal territory?

Is this insistence on federal funding for provincial initiatives consistent, or inconsistent, with the Premier’s stated goal from 2001?:

It’s high time that Labradorians, instead of feeling like someone else’s treasure trove, started feeling like an integral part of our province.

Danny continues:

DW: I’m committed to making sure we have the proper transportation infrastructure in Labrador. Minister [for Transportation and Works and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Tom] Rideout has successfully gotten the [Trans Labrador Highway] into the proper category [part of the National Highway System], where it should be. We can now access significant funds from the Government of Canada.

How much provincial funding is the provincial government willing to put into a provincial highway in the Labrador part of the province?

How much provincial funding is the provincial government willing to put into a provincial highway in the Labrador part of the province, whether or not the federal government spends even more than the 90% of the public funding to date that has ever gone into the highway?

Why is it that provincial spending in Labrador is always contingent on access to federal funds?

Has Labrador ceased to be part of the province? Does Labrador not contribute to the provincial treasury? Has Labrador become a federal territory?

Is this insistence on federal funding for provincial initiatives consistent, or inconsistent, with the Premier’s stated goal from 2001?:

It’s high time that Labradorians, instead of feeling like someone else’s treasure trove, started feeling like an integral part of our province.

Danny continues:

DW: I can tell you when you look at the money that was spent last year for the entire island compared to the money that was spent in Labrador, you would see a significant disproportion in expenditure on a per capita basis for Labrador.

You will find the same thing if you look at federal spending in Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole. What’s your point, Premier?

DW: I just say that to point that out to you and it’s not because I’m not in favour of it — I’m totally in favour of it and so is my government — but on the other hand Labradorians have to realize that I have to find a delicate balance of spreading scarce resources around a very large province with a huge geographical area to which services have to be provided throughout.

Question for the Premier: What does Labrador contribute, on a per-capita basis, to the provincial treasury? Let’s make a fair comparison here.

DW: It is difficult but Labradorians need to know we’re on their side and I don’t sense that Labradorians feel that. I’m disappointed in that.

This may have something to do with the fact that the Premier’s own government has broken its own promise to Labrador to include Labradorians in decision-making processes, to make Labradorians the beneficiaries of Labrador’s resources, and to “practice what we preach”; and something to do with the fact that the Premier has carried on his predecessors’ proud tradition of making supposed provincial commitments to, and priorities in, Labrador, contingent on federal funding, even in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Labradorian: How are you going to try and turn that around?

DW: We’re just going to keep doing what we’re doing.

Blaming the federal government for your own shortcomings and unwillingness to commit provincial funding to provincial programs and projects in Labrador?

Collecting revenues from Voisey’s Bay, GWAC, and other Labrador sources, then pleading poverty?

Lowering expectations? Breaking promises?

Stupidity: doing the same thing over and over in expectation of getting a different result.

Happy(talk) Holidays!

My, my, but the Cabinet Ministers were upbeat over the past two week, as reported by Voice of the [don't say Cabinet Minister - ed.] Contrived Messaging? Co-ordinating Matthews?

You'd almost think someone was stupid enough to have been polling over Christmas and New Year's.

Note, however, the abundant use of that marvelous preposition, despite:

Skinner Pleased With Happenings in Central Despite Situation
Jan 4, 2009

Innovation, Trade and Rural Development Minister Shawn Skinner says government is examining all options in efforts to ease the impact of the AbitibiBowater shut down in Grand Falls-Windsor. Skinner leads the province's task force made up of a number of cabinet ministers. He says he's pleased with recent meetings with union members, and regional and municipal leaders. Skinner says the people remain positive and from what he's seen, the integrity of the community gives him much confidence as we enter a new year.


Government Attempts to Keep Youth in the Province
December 31, 2008

The minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment is excited about the prospects for 2009, particularly as it relates to youth. Susan Sullivan's department is in the process of devising a strategy to entice young people to stay in the province and those who are elsewhere to come home to live and work. Sullivan says they heard a lot of good things at a recent youth summit in St. John's which will help them build a good base of understanding.


Rubber Tire Traffic Down in 2008
December 31, 2008

There was a slight overall drop in tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador during 2008 - about one percent -but Minister Clyde Jackman has a good feeling about 2009. Jackman says air traffic was up about four per cent but rubber tire traffic was down considerably. To that end, the Minister responsible for Tourism hopes to sit down with Marine Atlantic early in the New Year to talk about a marketing plan. Jackman expects next year to be a banner year for convention business.


MHA Optimistic Despite Closure
December 30, 2008

One of the MHA's representing the Grand Falls-Windsor area is confident that the region has a bright future - with or without a paper mill. The AbitibiBowater operation is set to close March 28th, putting more than 800 people out of work. Susan Sullivan, also the minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, says her department has several ongoing initiatives aimed at helping the displaced workers.


Wiseman Says 09 Budget Will Help Health Care
December 29, 2008

Health Minister Ross Wiseman says he is going into the New Year with a belief that this year's budget will treat the province's health care system well. Wiseman says he is looking forward to making improvements and building on the initiatives taken in 2008. Minister Wiseman says the major investments and improvements need to be highlighted. He says there are a number of gains made in the past year and we need to build on these to make sure the province has a health care system second-to-none in the country.


Aboriginal Communities On Premier's List For 2009
December 29, 2008

Premier Danny Williams says he will continue to advocate for the province's aboriginal communities on the national stage as the new year begins. Premiers from across the country will converge in Winnipeg mid January for their first meetings of 2009 and to meet with the Harper Government. Manitoba Premier Gary Doer and Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl say aboriginal issues, particularly education, employment and housing will top the agenda. Williams says Newfoundland and Labrador and the western provinces lead the country in action on aboriginal issues. Williams says relations between aboriginal communities and the provincial government have yielded some very positive results during 2008.


Business Meetings Continue Despite Economic Downturn; Oram
December 27, 2008

The Minister of Business says he's mindful of the challenges the current global economic downturn will present in the coming New Year, but he believes this province is well positioned to appeal to new markets. Paul Oram says they continue to meet with representatives from companies across North America and around the world who are looking for new and promising opportunities... Opportunities Oram believes they will find in this province.


Province to Announce Capital Works Early
December 26, 2008

Municipal Affairs Minister Diane Whelan says the province is working diligently to announce their capital works commitment early in the new year. Whelan says with the global economic crisis finally impacting this province, there have been calls from the construction and trades industry to know of governments spending intentions as soon as possible. Whelan says her department is working on a number of initiatives for 2009, and will be looking to get the ball rolling early.


Spending More Dollars on Healthcare
December 25, 2008

The provincial government now spends more on health care, on a per capita basis, than any other province in the country. Health Minister Ross Wiseman says the budget has grown about ten per cent a year for the last three or four years and with that growth comes a cap on what the system can absorb. Wiseman says some could argue that more could be added in people and technology but he says change is gradual and needs to be managed. He says how sustainable is a ten per cent a year growth factor. Wiseman says the government has demonstrated clearly that health is a high priority.

Notable quotables

Some choice quotes from the recent past of debates in the House of Assembly:

The people of this Province clearly still remember the situation we faced in 2003 and they do not want to go back there. In 2003 we inherited a fiscal mess, massive deficits, the worst per capita debt burden of the country by far, crumbling infrastructure, beleaguered social programs, high taxes, massive out-migration, a lack of strategic planning in both the resource and social sectors, and, most importantly, an attitude of despair.

- Danny Williams , March 10, 2008

Those who do not want us to run a deficit, the only other option is to cut spending, but if we are going to cut spending then we cannot come up with money for new satellite dialysis units. If they want us to cut spending, if they want us to go back to a balanced budget then tell us what they want us to cut spending on because that is the choice? Raise taxes or cut spending, both of those policies, right now with a fragile economy, are wrong.

- Tom Marshall , March 23, 2010

I would like to talk more about other investments and what this government has done, but if the Opposition wants us to cut or raise taxes then maybe that is what we should do but I do not think we are going to do that, Mr. Chair.

- Clayton Forsey , March 23, 2010

When times are bad and the jobs are scarce, we want to provide opportunities for the people of the Province. We do not want to slam on the brakes. We do not want to raise taxes when there is a recession going or economic uncertainty going on. We do not want to cut spending when there is economic hardship and uncertainty going on. We want to do the opposite. We want to lower taxes when there is a recession. We want to spend more. We want to do the spending because the private sector is not doing it.

- Tom Marshall , May 31, 2010

As I indicated earlier in my remarks, because of the fiscal prudence of this government, because we ran four years of surpluses, we accumulated a lot of cash, and that money will be used this year to finance our deficit. Yes, we are running a deficit, but we are running a deficit deliberately. We ran a deficit last year deliberately because it is good economic policy; it is good governance to do so.

- Tom Marshall , May 31, 2010

From our perspective in Newfoundland and Labrador, I think for the first time, and I am not standing to take credit for this, I am standing to say on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that I think we are in a really privileged position at this particular point in our development. We are in a bubble. I think we are in a protected bubble. The world situation is deteriorating. There is a lot of debt there, but one comment was made that the debt that is been incurred during the last twelve to eighteen months in order to get the world through the recession will not be corrected until 2030. A huge, staggering statement that it is going to take that long for the rest of the world to get up to speed. However, when I look at what is happening here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the fact that we do have our debt reduced, the fact that we have our pension funds under control, the fact that we have reduced taxes, the fact that we are doing things which countries that do not have the benefits that we have, that do not have the natural resources that we have – and that is in the area of research, development and innovation.

- Danny Williams , June 24, 2010

If you look at an example right now of governments that are running deficits in this country, well, how do you eliminate a deficit, whether it is in your health authority, in a department, or in a government? You either have to reduce services or you have to raise taxes. Now, I do not know, there may be other ways – or your revenues increase – but we are lucky in that respect, that our revenues are increasing. We always have to plan for the future, Mr. Speaker. We cannot simply continue to spend, spend, spend as if that will last forever.

- Jerome Kennedy , December 13, 2010

We decided that we would continue to stimulate the economy, and we deliberately planned a deficit of $194 million in order to provide jobs and opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador families. Fortunately, things worked out, the economy grew. We did not have to raise taxes; we did not have to cut spending to balance the books. The economy grew. Because the economy was growing, it generated new income and enabled us to have a surplus now – the fifth surplus in the last six years.

- Tom Marshall , March 22, 2011

Now, Mr. Speaker, government only has two ways to find revenue. We either get it from royalties and taxes, Mr. Speaker, paid by industry, business, and the people of the Province, or we have to raise taxes. There are only two ways, Mr. Speaker.

- Kathy Dunderdale , December 13, 2012

In projecting a significant deficit earlier this year, we could have made the easy choice to raise taxes or to let spending increase, which could have increased our debt, but we will not jeopardize the progress we have made as a Province. You do not borrow to pay for day-to-day expenses and send the bill to your children down the line.

- Jerome Kennedy , March 26, 2013

We are certainly not going to embrace her solution, which she announced two weeks ago, to raise taxes on hardworking Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is not our plan, Mr. Speaker.

- Kathy Dunderdale , April 15, 2013

The position is clear; the Leader of the NDP has stated publicly that she believes in raising taxes. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a report commissioned by the Newfoundland Federation of Labour also agrees with the same. There is no question that the NDP position in this Province is raise taxes.

- Jerome Kennedy , April 17, 2013

What is interesting is that they want to raise taxes on the very union members who support them. I am going to show you today that taxing the rich in this Province is really somewhat of a suggestion. It is a suggestion that simply cannot work; there are not enough rich. It depends how you define that term.

- Jerome Kennedy , April 17, 2013

What we have is that the number of people who are in that $40,000 to $90,000 range is the majority of people. So, if you are going to raise taxes to the point that it has an impact – because I have already indicated, to add 1 per cent on people who make more than $100,000 will raise you $12 million. To raise 1 per cent on people who make more than $200,000 will make you $5.3 million. That is not the kind of money you need when your expenses are like they are today in terms of our expenses and expenditures. What would happen, we would be forced to, by adopting the NDP policy, tax the middle-income earners. Again, Mr. Speaker, they are the people we are trying to protect, along with the lower-income earners.

- Jerome Kennedy , April 17, 2013

We have heard from some members of the Opposition as well: Did we consider raising taxes? Who do we raise taxes to, Mr. Speaker? They accuse us of having the highest corporate business tax rates. They say we need to raise taxes, but who do you do it to? We already – if you listen to them say – have the highest business tax rates, so we are limited. We are limited in that, Mr. Speaker. We need to, but we do have a high economy. People have jobs, people are coming home.

- Glenn Littlejohn , May 2, 2013

Now, that is what they are going to do. That is how you are going to pay for it. What else are we going to do? What is left? What are government's options when it comes to getting money, Mr. Chair? You raise taxes, you increase your revenues, or what?

- Jerome Kennedy , May 9, 2013

So they have to raise taxes, and that is where it is, Mr. Chair, because that is what NDP governments do. They spend and they tax, tax, and tax. I do not have in front of me the Leader of the NDP's most recent promulgation on Open Line where she said: There are tax avenues open to the Province; they chose not to take advantage of them. To equate what we are doing here today as somehow or other creating unfairness, I really have difficulty with that. If you look at our Poverty Reduction Strategy and you look at the fact that 60 per cent of our spending is in the social sector, yet we are facing a deficit.

- Jerome Kennedy , May 9, 2013

Now, I want to come to the fee increase. The Premier, and I have said this before, could have taken the easy way out. The easy way out is simply to leave it to someone else. It is someone else's problem. Well, Mr. Speaker, what I was told last week in a meeting with a number of different agencies: If you leave it someone else long enough, then you will gather debt. Again, that is what you are going to have to do if you are going to have all of these wonderful programs that the NDP put forward. You either have to borrow or raise taxes. You will borrow so much you cannot pay your debt. When you cannot pay your debt you run into a crisis like we have seen in Europe.

- Jerome Kennedy , May 13, 2013

When this government came to power in 2003, the tax burden on families in this Province was absolutely excessive. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that this Premier and this government is not going back there. In projecting a significant deficit earlier this year, we could have made the easy choice to raise taxes quite easily, but we did not. The fact that we have lowered taxes since coming into office speaks to our commitment to helping those working families. We have lowered taxes for working families in Newfoundland and Labrador by over a half billion dollars. We actually have in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, the most competitive tax regime in Atlantic Canada – but you will not hear the parties opposite talking about that.

- Steve Kent , May 14, 2013

We need people who will be responsible. We need people in government who will make considered decisions built upon sound research. We need people who will listen to the people and will also be responsible and make sure that no, we are not going to raise taxes irresponsibly. We are not going to ramp the debt of this Province up to an uncontrollable level. We are going to be concerned about the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to be concerned about our children and we are not going to be irresponsible.

- Wade Verge , May 14, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to take advice on dealing with multinationals from the leader of a party who said that she would raise taxes and throw multinationals out of this Province if she ever became leader of the government. So I am not intending to take advice from her, but what I will say is to continue with what I said a few moments ago: that it is our government that has taken a leadership role every opportunity that we have been able to do so to support workers in this Province, to advance workers' causes and support them and their families.

- Darin King , December 3, 2013