Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — 25 March 2003 (44th General Assembly, 5th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 4)
2003-03-25
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 25, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 4
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Premier on a point of order.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise with Question Period yesterday and questions raised by the Member for
Kilbride with respect to a policy on political activity by staff, and I quote
from page 113 of Hansard. He referred to a policy issued by government on
November 16, 2000. Mr. Speaker, he says: I will quote from it. I take it when
Members of the House of Assembly make that kind of a statement they will then
quote verbatim from the policy. His statement that he says he will quote from
it, his quote then that he suggests he is reading from the policy is:
"individuals occupying management positions, individuals occupying
positions that have been excluded from bargaining units, which includes all
agencies, all boards and all departments of government."
That is his statement, Mr. Speaker, and the political activity policy which
he does indicate has been around since 1988, is completely different than that.
It says that by definition it applies to all employees of the government. A
definition of an employee - which he would know because he read the policy -
says employees definition: individuals employed in government departments. No
reference to agencies. No reference to commissions. No reference to boards.
Direct government departments, Mr. Speaker. So, I would suggest that he either
added words that he did not intend to add or he must be reading from a different
document than the one he suggested that he was reading from yesterday.
Secondly, also right next to that it talks about politically restricted
employees, who are those individuals employed in government departments. No
reference to what he said that he was quoting from, which includes all agencies,
all boards, all departments of government. This policy has been around 1988,
brought in by the Progressive Conservative government. Never, ever referenced
agencies, boards, departments of governments. It only referenced: employed in
government departments. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I think he has acknowledged this
publicly since, that those people who are politically non-restricted - which
means they are free to talk to whomever they like about whatever they like at
any point in time - are contractual employees of the government. It is
understood that Mr. Saunders is a contractual employee.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you rule on a point of order, that we have
a member who added words that he says he quoted from a document which did not
exist. Then in knowing the difference about the person whom he referred to, who
is doing an important job for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that he
understood that person was excluded from the policy. I guess, Mr. Speaker, what
it refers to, what we read into it, at least we understand, is that if they were
ever to be the government you would not be allowed to talk about politics,
whether you were a restricted employee or not. All this person is guilty of, as
you acknowledged, is that he had a conversation with someone about politics. He
is not a restricted employee and he is not covered by the policy, and never was.
So I would like for you, at some point, Mr. Speaker, to rule on that point of
order.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, the very nature of the Premier's point of order is that he
has imputed motives to me that I knowingly stood up here yesterday and made an
assertion or asked a question related to government policy directly related to
government agencies, et cetera. That, unto itself, is unparliamentary and not
true.
The fact of the matter is that we quoted directly from political activity.
Now what is interesting is that the Premier, after doing his research and
getting around with his spin doctors, have come up with an appropriate response.
How he did not know yesterday that this was excluded is beyond me. We asked the
question and the question deserved to be answered.
I can also conclude from the Premier's statement, and I will get a chance
to deal with this in Question Period, that all the thirty-six Crown entities and
agencies for which government is responsible for - is the Premier now saying
that all of those agencies and Crown entities are excluded from the policy with
respect to management and executive positions? Is that what the Premier is
saying, that all Crown entities and agencies are excluded? If that is the case,
he certainly was not in possession of that information yesterday, and neither
was I.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. the Premier
under advisement and report back.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my I have leave to present a private member's
motion?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
MS JONES: Private member's statement, I apologize.
MR. SPEAKER: For a private member's statement? She is asking leave for
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we certainly, from time to time, have
provided ministers, even though they are excluded, by the Standing Orders of our
House, the opportunity to do a private members' statement -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, if members opposite would like to hang on to their
coattails for a moment -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave to present a private member's statement?
MR. E. BYRNE: Can I speak to that for a second, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. E. BYRNE: I am just saying that from time to time we have provided
leave -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: From time to time we have provided leave to ministers of
the Crown to make a private member's statement. It is against the Standing
Orders, but in this case we certainly do not mind. Normally we have three
speakers on our side that would do so, today we have two, so we have no
hesitation in providing the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture with the
opportunity to make a private member's statement.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to
Mrs. Millicent Loder, who passed away on March 7, at the age of eighty-eight.
Mrs. Loder, originally from Rigolet, Labrador, touched the lives of many as
her work as a nurse found her helping those in many areas of our Province such
as Cartwright, Mary's Harbour, Hopedale, St. Anthony, and St. John's.
Throughout her career, Mrs. Loder achieved many outstanding accomplishments.
In 1968 she developed a pediatrics department where she was given a position as
director of nursing and organized the building of an infants home for needy
children in North West River.
Mrs. Loder's contributions to our Province did not go unnoticed. In 1980
she received an honourary doctorate from Memorial University as well as
honourary membership from the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland.
Two years later she was awarded the prestigious Order of Canada award in
recognition of her grave contribution to the people of Labrador.
In 1989, Mrs. Loder released her autobiography, entitled, Daughter of
Labrador , entailing her life and love for this Province.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, and I am sure all members of the House, I
would like to send my condolences to Mrs. Loder's family and friends. Her
dedication to Newfoundland and Labrador and her passion for nursing will never
be forgotten. She will be missed by many and will be remembered forever in our
hearts.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to ask members of this hon. House to join with me in extending
hearty congratulations to Ron and Effie Taylor of Makinsons who celebrated their
65 th wedding anniversary on March 1, 2003. This couple have lived
their entire lives in the community of Makinsons, playing integral parts in both
church and community.
The family, Mr. Speaker, marked the occasion with an open house attended by
numerous friends and relatives, all of whom were treated to a good old-fashioned
kitchen party, highlighted by good food, good entertainment and, of course, good
company. Effie at age eighty-two, and Ron at age eighty-seven, continue to enjoy
good health and, as always, were the centre and life of the party.
I and others were treated to many stories of their experiences through the
sixty-five years of their lives together. Ron had worked a lifetime as a heavy
equipment operator with Babb Construction Company, and in that capacity
certainly travelled all around this Province, especially in the days following
Confederation as the road system we know today was in its developing stages.
Effie stayed at home and certainly took responsibility for raising eleven
children, six boys and five girls, a task she certainly completed despite some
very trying times.
Ron and Effie placed high value on family and church and have not wavered in
their devotion to either throughout their entire lives. They continue to play a
vital role in their church, their community and their family.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, I speak for all members present in congratulating Ron
and Effie Taylor of Makinsons on the occasion of their sixty-fifth wedding
anniversary, and wish them many more years of wedded bliss.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate the five athletes of the Gander Wings Special
Olympics Club on their recent success at the Provincial Special Olympic Winter
Games held in Goose Bay, Labrador.
In total, this small team captured fourteen medals: ten gold, three silver
and one bronze, in the sport of snowshoeing.
Sarah Brown of Gander won gold in the 200-, 400-, and 800-metre events and
silver in the 100-metre race.
Francene Scott, also of Gander, got gold in the 200- and 400-metre race and
silver in the 100-metre event.
Receiving gold in the 200- and 40-metre competition and placing fourth in the
100-metre event was Darryl Power, also of Gander.
The fourth Gander member was Serena Brown, who won silver in the 200- and
800-metre events, placed third in the 400-metre race and came in fourth in the
100-metre competition.
From Lewisporte, Mike Austin, who is a part of the Gander Wings Team,
captured three gold medals for the 200-, 400-, and 800-metre races. Mike also
placed fourth in the 100-metre event and was named the games top male athlete.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend a special congratulations to these five
athletes on their efforts and determination, and applaud them on their
well-deserved wins.
I would also like to thank all the participants, sponsors and individuals who
assisted in the success of these games. I am told that the organizing committee
in Goose Bay did an outstanding job in the preparation of these games and made
it an enjoyable event for all involved.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On March 6, 7, and 8, the residents of St. Anthony and surrounding area were
treated to a great display of hockey talent as the Provincial High School Triple
A Hockey Championships were held at the St. Anthony Olympia. The tournament
featured teams from Mobile High in Mobile, Lester B. Pearson in Wesleyville,
Elwood High in Deer Lake, and Roncalli High in Port Saunders, King Academy in
Harbour Breton, and Harriot Curtis Collegiate in St. Anthony.(All names are
correct)
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to attend a number of the games, and the
quality of the hockey was superb. The tournament was a testament to the hard
work and dedication of the teachers, coaches and parents who give so much to
minor hockey in this Province. The championship game was well attended, as was
all the tournament, with well over 900 attending the championship game.
Mr. Speaker, the championship game was played between Harriot Curtis
Collegiate of St. Anthony and King Academy of Harbour Breton. While King Academy
put up an admirable fight, I have to say that Harriot Curtis Collegiate won the
day with a 4-3 win in overtime.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend congratulations to the
Harriot Curtis Collegiate Huskies for winning this year's Provincial Triple A
Championship and to commend coaches Alonzo Pilgrim and Roy Coffin who have
dedicated seventeen years to coaching the Harriot Curtis Collegiate hockey team,
and in that time have helped their team to three provincial championships and
two second place finishes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, recently the Bay Roberts Heritage Society finished their
submission to the Virtual Museum of Canada.
The Heritage Society was chosen to participate in this pilot project and
wisely decided to use the Cable Building Story. The Heritage Society sent 146
photos to the Canadian Heritage Information Network to be place on their Web
site in March. The pictures began with a photo of officials from Western Union
Cable looking at the site in 1910. The pictures traced the Cable Building's
Story to the present.
This is not the first time that the Bay Roberts Heritage Society have been
honoured for their dedication and hard work. The Heritage Society has received a
Merit Award from the Museum Association of Newfoundland and Labrador in
recognition of excellence in preserving heritage in this Province.
The Heritage Society's submission will be added shortly to the Virtual
Museum's Web site http://www.virtualmuseum.ca
and I encourage everyone to view this site. However, Mr. Speaker, nothing beats
visiting the real site. When you come to the Bay Roberts area make it a point to
visit the Western Union Cable Building and view part of this Province's
heritage.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that members of this House join with me in congratulating
the Bay Roberts Heritage Society on being chosen and on completing the Cable
Building Story that will now be featured on the Virtual Museum of Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we identified clearly who really carries the hatchet
in this Province, and Premier Grimes, by his own admission, has done so for
fourteen years in Liberal government. He admitted yesterday he was in Cabinet
when 2,500 jobs were cut in one budget. He was part of the over 4,000 direct
jobs and 12,000 indirect jobs that have been cut by Liberal governments since he
has been in public office. He cut over 1,000 teaching positions as Minister of
Education and he continued to cut jobs in his budgets of the last two years.
His recent actions confirm a continued pattern which will no doubt, Mr.
Speaker, change now that he will soon finally be legally required to call an
election. Obviously, he is trying to distance himself from his past.
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has recently laid off a number
of permanent employees and, in fact, began laying off workers on the Northern
Peninsula immediately after this government lost two by-elections over two years
ago.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier agree that the termination of these
significant positions by a government corporation is having a negative effect on
the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and is forcing more of our people
to leave our Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I can report to the House of Assembly, to all members and the people of
the Province, is that since I have become the leader the prospects have changed
so dramatically and positively in the Province because of a deal like Voisey's
Bay, because of White Rose -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: - that, in fact, there was a record set in Newfoundland
and Labrador last year for the most people working in the Province in any one
year since Stats Canada has been reporting the numbers, Mr. Speaker. That is the
reality of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, who supports
the privatization of Hydro, unless he has changed his mind from a few years ago
- he is a firm public record supporter of privatization of Hydro - is now
suggesting -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, who is a publicly confirmed
supporter of the privatization of Hydro, and we wonder how many other agencies
and organizations, is now suggesting - maybe he is suggesting - that the
government should be giving political direction, as elected politicians, to the
board of Hydro. The Hydro Corporation, Mr. Speaker, with respect to -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - any changes they have made in staff, the details would
be given by the minister through whom they answer to the government. But I can
tell you, there was no direction given to Hydro by anybody in this government as
to how to run their affairs.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Other than that the law suggests that they run a good
business and they try and keep the rates as low as possible for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: What a short memory the Premier has. He forgets that he
brought Mr. Wells and Mr. MacDonald up to his office and brought them in on the
carpet and gave political direction to them about the Lower Churchill deal. What
a short memory you have, Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Give the people the facts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him now to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated that Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro yesterday was the absolute gem of public corporations. What an
acknowledgment by a member of a former Cabinet who wanted to sell this gem while
the members of the opposition parties opposed it and stopped it, just as we
opposed and stopped the Lower Churchill deal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier described Newfoundland
and Labrador -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon member now to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In light of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday the Premier described
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and I quote: as very profitable - his exact
words - would the Premier explain how he can justify laying off hundreds of
people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where unemployment is at its highest,
from a government corporation that he admits is very profitable?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the issues raised in the question, I can report proudly to
the Leader of the Opposition that the meeting that he refers to in my office
with Mr. Wells and with Mr. MacDonald, as the Chair and Chief Operating Officer,
Chief Executive Officer, of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, was held so that I
could tell them exactly this: that they must follow proper process and make
their own decisions, which they did, which they absolutely did.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, he can check with Mr. Wells and he can check
with Mr. MacDonald, who will have to verify that was exactly the nature of the
meeting and that was exactly my comment.
Maybe what he is suggesting is the kind of meeting that would have happened
up there if he were the Premier, and he would be up there giving political
direction and trying to tell them what to do.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, he talked about the Opposition, about the government
wanting to privatize Hydro and the Opposition stopping it. Well, I tell you
what, the Opposition to the privatization did not include the Leader of the
Opposition. He was in the private sector supporting privatization and telling
the Premier of the day that it was the right thing to do, on a daily basis, so
he cannot add himself to the particular group.
I can tell you this: if they want to know details of the running of
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the minister responsible will gladly answer the
questions that have been reported to him by Mr. Wells, as the Chief Executive
Officer, and the board, who are making these decisions with no direction from
the government, because the law precludes it and prevents it because they are an
arm's-length Crown agency whose mandate is to run itself in an efficient
fashion to be profitable so that they do not go into debt and they remain a
great asset for the Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - and to make sure that the rates are as low as possible
for the consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell the Premier that meeting would not have taken place in my office
if I was Premier because that deal that you were prepared to sign would never
have been on the table in the first place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
interference with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
At the Public Utilities Board hearings in 2001, it was acknowledged that the
dividend payout as a percentage of net regulated operating income ranged from 10
per cent to 730 per cent, as opposed to the policy which was up to 75 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier acknowledge that the Grant Thornton Report,
written on behalf of the board, states that the primary reason for the
deterioration of the debt-to-equity ratio of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was
the increase in the forecasted payout of dividends to the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: I am sure the members opposite will have confidence that Hydro
will be treated properly by the new Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. NOEL: Will continue to be treated that way by this member of the
House.
Mr. Speaker, the debt to equity fluctuations; ratios fluctuate from time to
time but the reality is that Hydro is directed and required by law to function
as a commercial corporation that is not to be interfered with by this
government, and we do not interfere with it. They are regulated by the Public
Utilities Board. They are not in the process of laying off hundreds of people,
as the Leader of the Opposition suggests in his further fearmongering. I cannot
understand why he thinks fearmongering is such good politics, but he indulges in
it every opportunity he gets.
The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is creating hundreds and
thousands of jobs in this Province. We are creating an extra five or six this
year as a result of the Voisey's -
AN HON. MEMBER: Hundreds or thousands?
MR. NOEL: Hundreds and thousands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. NOEL: As a result of the Voisey's Bay development, Mr. Speaker, we
will be creating an extra 500 or 600 jobs in this Province this year. That
development -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has told the people
of the Province that if he had been Premier the Voisey's Bay development would
not have gone ahead and this Province would have been deprived of those 500 or
600 jobs this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions will continue to be for the Premier, if he wishes to answer
them. Mr. Speaker, in just two years this government has taken some $120 million
in dividends from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and an undisclosed amount last
year. However, the transcript from the Public Utilities Board indicates that a
request was made from government for $104 million in 2002. In addition, the
Lower Churchill fiasco has taken some ten of millions of dollars from Hydro's
bottom line. In fact, I think even some of the Premier's travel was paid for
by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell the people how many jobs could be retained
or created if government did not continue to bleed Hydro dry to compensate for
its own mismanagement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I can tell the Leader of the Opposition and the people of the Province
is that anything to do with funding negotiations with respect to the Lower
Churchill, which have been going on, by the way, with cost attributed to Hydro
ever since the days of Premier Frank Moores and Premier Brian Peckford. Every
single premier, to his credit, has tried to find some right and proper way to
develop the Lower Churchill for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;
everyone of them.
I give credit to Premier Moores for that, who spent millions of dollars from
Hydro trying to create more benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I
give credit to Premier Peckford, who spent millions and millions of dollars
trying to find a way to do something for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They
did not succeed. We did not succeed the last time, but what I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, is this: nothing related to that has anything to do with the
operational decisions on a day-to-day basis that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
makes to make sure that they are delivering electricity in the best manner, at
the lowest rates possible, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. While
some of the ratios may have changed, the fact of the matter is, they are still
very profitable. They are still a tremendous asset to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador. They own an asset and run it on our behalf.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: It is right and proper, from time to time, for that asset
to generate monies, not only to keep electricity rates low, but also to provide
to the people of the Province, to provide other services, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am at a loss to understand, Mr. Speaker, how that answer had anything to do
with how many jobs would be retained or created in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we will talk about the effect that it is having. I would suggest
that the unplanned removal of millions of dollars from any company's operating
base will, in fact, impact its day to day operation. The impact of past job cuts
that are having on Hydro's ability to meet customers needs is finally
beginning to show, particularly on the Northern Peninsula where jobs were cut
last year.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier please confirm that a live power line was on
the ground for a full two weeks on the Northern Peninsula because Hydro did not
have enough workers in the area to make the necessary repairs? Is that safety?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that that was the case. I will
check into it and provide the information for the Leader of the Opposition as
soon as the information is made available to me.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that what is happening at Hydro is not a
result of its requirement to pay dividends to the Province. Hydro is regulated
by the Public Utilities Board. It is regulated as a commercial corporation and
it is required to operate in the least costly fashion so that it provides the
lowest possible electricity rates to ratepayers of the Province. Hydro is trying
to operate more efficiently. It has been instructed by the Public Utilities
Board to reduce its expenses by $2.5 million this year, and it has to do that.
The reductions that it plans to make - and it does not plan to make a lot of
reductions. It has removed a half a dozen positions in the past few months, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister, now, to conclude his answer, quickly.
MR. NOEL: It won't hire as many as it normally does in temporary
positions this year, but that is because it is getting more efficient in its
operations, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, is this brand new polished minister now telling the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador that taking hundreds and hundreds of millions of
dollars out of a corporation is having no effect whatsoever on the operations of
a company? Surely you can't be saying that, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to questions, the Premier made reference
to the fact that Hydro should have staff in certain circumstances that use
technology instead of people.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier assure the people of this Province that the
elimination or reduction in hours of some 180 maintenance workers will have
absolutely no negative effect on safety and will not impact service to our
residents resulting in power outages?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, Hydro is regulated on an operating basis. It is
required to operate as efficiently as possible by the Public Utilities Board and
by the Electrical Powers Control Act of the Province. It has no alternative but
to operate efficiently. It won't be laying off 180 people this year, Mr.
Speaker. It won't be avoiding hiring 180 people this year. It will reduce the
number of people that it normally hires for the summer maintenance period
because it has become more efficient.
It is not a function of Hydro to be a job creation arm of government.
Government does that in other ways. Hydro is required to operate efficiently and
not to spend any more money than it has to, to artificially inflate the rates
paid by ratepayers throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't have the
luxury of creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs.
To honour its responsibilities to the people of the Province, it has to
operate efficiently and that is what it is doing now, that is what it is
contemplating doing, and it is not contemplating having to make any significant
reductions in its normal workforce in order to achieve that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, you did not acknowledge a responsibility to the ratepayers of the
Province when you gave Inco a subsidized rate. You were pretty quick to hand
that one out.
Mr. Speaker, the hundreds of millions of dollars that I referred to
previously, which have been taken by government from Hydro to pay for their
fiscal mismanagement, ultimately have to be replaced by the people of our
Province. Would the Premier agree, and if the Premier decides to answer this
question, that the present applications by Hydro to the Public Utilities Board
will result in an increase in the electrical rate charged to the people of the
Province, and, in fact, the people will be paying, once again, for this
government's mismanagement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can say again to the Leader of the Opposition, who likes to play with
words, he understands and, I believe, he would acknowledge, if he will rise
again, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro, is not and does not and will not and have not committed to
provide any subsidized electricity rate to Inco. I think he will acknowledge
that if he stands again. I wish he would stand up. He knows. He is acknowledging
now in his seat, Mr. Speaker. Maybe he will do it publicly. He is acknowledging,
in his seat, right now that there is a different rate in this Province for
commercial activities like the paper mills and the refineries than there is for
householders and that Inco will get the same commercial rate as anybody else in
the Province. That is not a subsidy, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: He just acknowledged it. I am sure he is going to stand
up now and admit that he did not mean to say that we are subsidizing Inco,
because it is not happening.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there is no decision. The decisions with respect to
electricity rates are not determined by the government. As the Minister of Mines
and Energy has pointed out, and the Leader of the Opposition would acknowledge
if he wants to have the full facts on the table, that when you take dividends
from a company that has been profitable, because it comes from their profit, and
when their rate is determined on their operational base, which generates a
profit, that they can either keep or they can give to the government to use for
other purposes. We have decided to take some of their profit, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: They are allowed to set rates that make sure they cover
their costs. The Public Utilities Board makes sure that the costs are as low as
possible. They will decide whether or not any rate increase is justified.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It started off, the proceedings of the House today, the Premier stood on a
point of order that his comments were not only unparliamentary but untrue. He
read from a Minute in Council, which is the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the
Cabinet, on the policy on political activities for employees. Correctly, he read
section B: politically restricted employees means individuals occupying
management positions and individuals occupying positions that have been excluded
from a bargaining unit. He was correct, but what he failed to mention, Mr.
Speaker, was this, that order, according to that Cabinet document, that the
President of Treasury Board was directed under the document to communicate this
policy to all Crown corporations, boards, commissions and agencies to assure
that they were aware of the limitations.
Now, my question for the Premier is this: Based upon your opening statement
and point of order today, I would assume that Crown agencies and entities, based
on your statement, have been excluded from this policy, and if they are, when
did that change?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad that the Member for Kilbride has raised the issue again so we can
explore it further. We are reading from two different documents and, I guess, it
is his lack of experience in the government that he does not understand what I
am reading from is actually what flowed from his document.
He is referring to a Minute in Cabinet in 1988 that said there should be a
policy established. It gave direction to establish a policy and then it said
that the Crowns, corporations, and agencies should be informed of this. What I
am reading from is the policy that was then subsequently established. The Minute
in Council - now he would never know that having never been through the process.
So I am willing to mark it down to inexperience.
But, Mr. Speaker, the MC said: Set up a policy. The policy has been set up.
It has been in place since 1988. So it is time to get beyond reading a Minute in
Cabinet that said: Let's set up a policy - which a PC government said was a
good idea in 1988 - and start reading from what the policy actually is. He did
say that the policy was reviewed again in May; it happened to be November. He
said November, it happened to be May of the year 2000 - and the policy clearly
states that political activity - which is what he is talking about. He
referenced a conversation between two individuals as being something that should
be politically banned.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: The political activity that was referred to - and I will
read this because I think it is important for the record. The policy says: The
requirement for an impartial and effective public service makes it necessary for
government, first initiated by a PC government, to restrict some public servants
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: - not from talking, but from running for public office.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is a great soliloquy by the Premier, but
he avoided the question directly. Are the thirty-six Crown agencies and entities
to which government and Cabinet are responsible for - for running effective
public services in this Province - are they excluded from that policy, and, if
they are, why are they?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the whole intent of the policy - and it is refreshing to find
out the thought processes for the Opposition. They are against having
individuals decide if they want to run for the party. Now they are against
freedom of speech. The restriction is this: a restriction that prevents and
restricts some public servants from running for political office while in
receipt of wages from the government. Now that is the MC, that is the document,
that is the issue we are talking about.
As a matter of fact, it goes on to say that these same people are permitted
to attend public, political functions, to actually run for political executives
in parties, but not to run for office. Now he used that document yesterday to
suggest that a person who is heading up the fuel price commission for the
Province should be fired because he had a private conversation with someone
about their political leanings. Mr. Speaker, that is not what the policy is
about and it does not, and has never applied to agencies, commissions, and
boards -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - because it was never written there by a PC government
and it has never been written there by any government since, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier will not answer the question
directly. When were Crown agencies, entities and boards of governments excluded
from the policy? Secondly, since when are people who are appointed by government
to these thirty-six Crown agencies or entities, since when are they not in
receipt of the Crown's shilling?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me explain it again. If you are in receipt of wages from the government,
the restriction is that you cannot stay in the employ, receive the wages, and
also be a candidate for political office in a provincial election. That is the
only restriction. That is what all this fuss was about yesterday. It was
represented and presented very differently by the Member for Kilbride who
suggested, because someone spoke to someone about their political intention,
they should be fired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER GRIMES: That is what they suggest, Mr. Speaker. Let me read it
again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, for clarity, let me read it
again: This policy applies to all employees - all employees.
Then, under the definition of employee, it says: Employees are individuals
employed in direct government departments.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.
PREMIER GRIMES: That has always been the policy, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier.
A year-and-a-half ago, in August, 2001, the Premier, along with the New
England Governors and Atlantic Eastern Canadian Premiers, signed on to a
document called Climate Change Action Plan. This plan called for each government
to have a plan -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This plan, signed on to by the government, called for the Premier and this
Province to introduce a plan for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and
conserving energy, shifting to less polluting energy, and to lead by example
with annual progress reports.
Mr. Speaker, how can this Premier be taken seriously on this issue when we
find out that there is no plan in place after a year-and-a-half, no concrete
proposals? The Premier opposed Kyoto and even threatened to defy the federal
government, and now expects a feeble request to Ottawa on the Lower Churchill to
replace a real policy on climate change that would conserve energy and create
jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Our Province cannot have a provincial plan until we know what the federal
plan is, and the federal government has not yet finalized its plan. As a matter
of fact, it is only in the initial stages of developing one. Federal public
officials are in the process of consulting with officials in the provinces
across the country right now to help determine what that national plan is going
to be. Our officials are working in the various departments and consulting about
what we think is appropriate for a plan for our Province. We are in
consultations with the other Atlantic Provinces and the American States in
regard to the New England Governors' initiatives.
These things are all being done as we speak, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, a plan
for the Province will be developed before long, but we will not be able to
finalize our plan until we know what the federal plan is going to be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In its last annual report, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro disclosed that it
spent over $50 million burning fuel to produce electricity, in producing 1.6
million tonnes of CO 2 ; 20,000 tonnes of sulfur dioxide, and 3,500
tonnes of nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases.
Mr. Speaker, why is this government ignoring opportunities for savings,
opportunities for reductions in greenhouse gases, and opportunities for jobs and
economic development in new technology in alternate energy development and
housing renovation, programs which would save cost for consumers and provide
jobs for people in this Province? Why are they ignoring these opportunities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We are not ignoring any opportunities. We are pursuing all opportunities. One
opportunity that we pursued was the development of the Lower Churchill, and we
are in the process of continuing to pursue that, Mr. Speaker. We are talking to
potential suppliers of wind power for the Province. We are pursuing that and
hopefully we will make some progress there.
The reality is that we are spending a lot of money on fuel for our hydro
system but we have no choice about that. We cannot control the world price of
fuel, Mr. Speaker.
We are going to do all we can to diversify our generating systems but we
cannot do that overnight. We are in the process of doing what we can, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier would not knowingly provide
any information to the House that was not factually correct. I just want to be
clear that he referred to a Minute-in-Council in 1988 and he talked about that
it was a Minute-in-Council, which is coming from the Cabinet, that it was a
directive to put together a policy governing political activity. That is not the
case. It clearly says, and I have a copy of it here, that the following policy
relating to political activity shall apply.
It was not that they would do it. It was, they made a policy in 1988, they
applied it in 1988. As a matter of fact, the amendment to the policy clearly
states that the President of Treasury Board was to show or to communicate that
to all of government's Crown agencies and entities. That is a Cabinet
document, I say to the Minister of Education.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if that policy has changed, or the Premier unknowingly was
not aware of it, let him stand now and explain to the people of the Province why
there was a policy in 1988 that allowed Crown entities and agencies to be
applied under the political activities policy; and, if it changed, when did it
change?
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to the point of order, to point out again, as I did, because we are just
rehashing the ground from Question Period, and I believe you will rule that it
is not a point of order, that in fact I did not refer to a Minute-in-Council.
The Member for Kilbride has been quoting from an MC that is fifteen years old.
The MC, which I pointed out in Question Period, the Minute-in-Council gives
instruction to develop a policy and contain these particular types of features.
Since then - and what he should do in the future when he is doing his research
is get the policy - the actual policy that arose from that direction from
Cabinet, which he does not have and refuses to acknowledge, contains nothing of
what he says, and never has, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, obviously there is a difference of opinion about a
document, about a policy, between two hon. members, and that certainly does not
constitute a point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 28(4)(
d) of the Financial Administration
Act, I am tabling two special warrants relating to the 2002-2003 fiscal year,
and pursuant to
section 28(4)(
e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am
tabling three special warrants relating to the 2002-2003 fiscal year.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Select Committee appointed to draft a reply to
the Speech of His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, I am pleased to present the
report of the Select Committee on behalf of the Member for Conception Bay South,
the Member for Gander, myself, and members of the House.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following
Private Member's Resolution:
WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Home Heating Fuel Rebate announced by
the Minister of Finance on March 20, 2003 provides a $100 rebate for low income
households that use furnace oil, stove oil or propane as their primary source of
heat; and
WHEREAS households that use electric heat have had extraordinary increases in
their heating costs because of the unusually cold weather; and face additional
deferred cost when Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro raises electricity rates to
offset the costs of Bunker C fuel used to produce electricity at Holyrood;
BE IT RESOLVED that the government amend the Newfoundland and Labrador Home
Heating Fuel Rebate to include low income households that use electricity as
their primary source of heat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Heat, heat!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the motion that the House approve,
in general, the budgetary policy of the government, the Budget Speech, and I
further give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the
granting of supply to Her Majesty, Bill 3.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, to move that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for
granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 2.
Motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House.
Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just again to make a few comments today with respect to Interim Supply, I am
always particularly interested in the comments made by the Finance critic, the
Member for Ferryland, who I understand now is receiving daily briefings from Ms
Marshall as to what he should or should not be saying.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.
MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, I can tell you, the Finance critic is
very open to input from anybody. It is too bad the government of the day, for
ten years, did not listen to what the former Auditor General had to say. It is
too bad.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Our economy would be in a lot better position today if they
had to take that advice. We are delighted to take anything that is positive and
that is going to help our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the intervention because I guess it does acknowledge that Ms
Marshall, the former Auditor General, who has a certain view of how government
should be run, has the ear of the Finance critic. I understand she has also
acknowledged publicly in a CBC radio and television interview that she has the
ear of the leader of the party. In her own words: Do you think you have Mr.
Williams' ear? Yes, I think I do. I am sure I do. The things that I have been
trying to get implemented for the last ten years will be done. He has committed
to that.
Madam Chair, what we want to look at is the Marshall plan with respect to the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and keeping commitments, because it is a
current topic today about keeping commitments. We are debating Interim Supply in
which yesterday - and I will say it again, because the Member for Ferryland did
not like it yesterday. He tried to suggest that it is tough to have a debate in
a limited time, and we should have been here weeks ago, when in fact he did not
come and ask for the Legislature to be opened. He did not and no one else did.
The Opposition - and he should go to the caucus meeting and check - through the
Opposition House Leader, agreed to open the Legislature on the day that we did.
He is checking now to see if it is true. You should have gone to the caucus
meeting and you could have sorted it out there, but I guess you don't go
because someone else has the ear of the leader and the caucus at this point in
time.
MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.
MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: I do not like to sit here and have people make statements
that are not true, so I am going to stand when I know statements to be false,
when made by the Premier or anybody in this House. Our House Leader and caucus
have never agreed. That was set unilaterally and dictatorially by government in
contravention of the Standing Orders of this House, the delayed opening this
House. We were not a party to it. The Government House Leader and the Premier,
that is who ordered when this House was open. I would like him to tell the truth
and not get on with this nonsense when we are debating $1.35 billion - and he
getting on with a pile of garbage here today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, the real point being that if there was any objection - if wants to
split hairs and talk about no agreement - the Opposition House Leader, because
he does all the speaking - the leader does not speak outside the Legislature -
the Opposition House Leader raised no objection whatsoever to the opening date,
did not protest to the media, did not protest to the people or the public, did
not pound on the doors of the Legislature and demand that it be opened, so there
was agreement, Madam Chair, with respect to the date that we opened and would
have a full debate.
Currently there is a debate in the Province about whether or not commitments
will be met. Because in the Throne Speech just a week or so ago, the Leader of
the Opposition, being quite forceful, being quite strong, because he wanted to
give that image, the language that was used was this - the Leader of the
Opposition used this language - I want to put the people of this Province on
notice.
Now, it was said in that fashion because he wanted people to pay attention to
what he was going to say next. He wanted people to stand up and sit up and take
notice of what he was saying, and what followed was this - what he put the
people of the Province on notice for was that - I, and this caucus - because
they are all in it together -
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was just in our caucus room just outside the Legislature, and I watched the
Premier on the televised channel for the second day in a row, when I was not
here, say there was agreement when the House would be opened, and that it is not
true. The Government House Leader informed me when the House was going to be
opened. It was not a question of debate. I was informed that the House would
open on March 18, because some new ministers needed a week or so to get briefed
on their Cabinet portfolios. That is the reason.
There was no agreement. The Government House Leader informed me. I can say to
the Premier, it is not our job of when the House opens. That is your role and
you made that decision. Do not try to split that hair, but I can tell you that
we play a large part on when it will close.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.
MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to state on the record, too, Madam
Chairperson, I found out unofficially about four days before government
announced it, when someone was coming to my office and they were on an elevator
with the Government House Leader and another person, who they did not recognize,
who stated in that elevator that the House will open on March 18. That person
came to a meeting in our office and that was when I heard it. There was an
official announcement four days later. So, they are talking to the public and
people on the House opening here and do not have the courtesy to tell people of
this House when the House is going to open.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM CHAIR: The House rules no point of order.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I look forward to participating in the debate on several occasions this
afternoon.
Madam Chair, you can see the sensitivity of the Opposition when things are
not going well for them. They raise objections over even the most minor points.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Let me make the point, again, Madam Chair, if they want
to suggest that there was no agreement, now I suppose they will stand up and
suggest that they objected, because I am telling you one thing: there was no
objection by the Opposition as to the opening date of the Legislature. Not one
objection was raised by one single soul with respect to the opening of the
Legislature.
The point, Madam Chair, I was getting to was this: we were put on notice a
week ago, because the Leader of the Opposition wanted everybody in the Province
to pay attention to what he was about to say next, which was that I, and the
caucus that I lead, will not be bound by commitments made by this government.
He was proud to say it. Ever since, he has been all over the public airwaves
of Newfoundland and Labrador suggesting that he really did not mean it; that he
did not mean it.
He was on the airwaves again this morning talking about - because the
President of NAPE, I understand, was on. I did not hear any of it. It was
reported to me. The President of NAPE was on the radio saying that I spoke to
NAPE and I promised to honour their contracts. Well, maybe they are going to
honour the contracts because I guess they will turn the place upside down -
which is the phrase he used when he was so brave and invigorated in his
inaugural speech the day he was acclaimed at the rock concert in the stadium.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: He was so brave that day, and he quoted the Auditor
General. He quoted Ms Marshall and said: if my auditor said the things she was
saying I would go in and turn the place upside down. That is what I would do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Last week he was saying: I will not be bound by any
commitments made by this government. Ever since he is now saying: Oh, maybe I
will not turn it upside down after all. Oh, those commitments are okay, I did
not mean you. I did not mean you, Mr. Hanlon. I did not mean NAPE. I did not
mean your workers. I must have meant somebody else. So, I guess the whole notion
is this, what he did say today - and maybe he will clarify it. He did say on the
public airwaves that he will honour the terms of the contract. In other words,
the raise is safe and secure; because he is committed to that now. Just like he
committed to the doctors, when asked. He did not volunteer it though, he had to
be asked. He had to be asked. He did not know the answer for three days. They
could not find him. When they finally found him and he figured out the answer,
he said: Oh, the doctors have nothing to fear from us. Whatever goes on in the
arbitration, we will live with that. We will honour that; three days later.
It took him three days to meet with his caucus, I guess, because they always
meet and discuss all of these things, as to whether or not Ron Dawe is allowed
to run; as to whether or not Gary Gale is a suitable candidate; as to whether or
not Jim Hodder is allowed to run. Guess what? They all voted that Jim Hodder is
okay, because they vote on all of them. Jim Hodder, who was a Liberal back in
the 1980s, then ran for the Tories; going to be revived again as a fresh new
face. They had a vote and a group of them said Jim Hodder is okay with us. We
vote for Jim Hodder to be a candidate. Then when Ron Dawe - who used to be in
the Cabinet with them - said: I would like to run. They had a vote and everyone
of them, it was unanimous - the Member for Waterford Valley said: I will not sit
in this caucus if Ron Dawe becomes a candidate for us. Now, you go out Mr.
Leader and say that to the public because I want the public to know that this
full caucus finds Mr. Dawe, for some unknown reason, to be unacceptable; to be
absolutely unacceptable and cannot run under any set of circumstances.
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Chair.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Something happened in Question Period, on a point of order. Before I do, I
also recall the Premier talking about a member of his own crowd, that he could
not sleep one night if he was part his government.
Notwithstanding that, Madam Chair, it is a clear precedent in this House that
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: It is a clear precedent in this House - and the Premier
before he leaves, because it deals with him, that he used documents in this
House today to influence debate. Under a
section of Beauchesne , documents
cited: a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate. The
admission of that document must be tabled in this House. So, I am asking the
Premier, before he leaves this Legislature, to table the document in this House
that he was referring to.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: To the point of order, Madam Chair.
I do not know why the hon. the Opposition House Leader waited until now. The
Premier was here all during the debate.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) get up when he raised the point of order.
MR. LUSH: The Premier has been here ever since. So, if the hon. member
had raised the debate at the time - the Premier is now gone. I do not know what
the Premier will do, but the hon. member had plenty of time to raise this. I do
not know whether he was out walking in the corridors and got an inspiration and
came in to do it but the hon. gentleman -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. LUSH: I am not finished. The hon. gentleman is trying to take this
place on its ear. If he does it, Madam Chair, everything is okay but the minute
anybody on this side does something, then it is all against the rules. The hon.
member should cool down and let the debate proceed in a mature and responsible
fashion.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do apologize for not raising it immediately. I had to deal with a personal
matter. That is why I had to go to the caucus room. Now that you are in
possession of that information, let's be in possession of some other facts.
When I rose on a point of order, Madam Chair, the Premier was sitting in his
seat and he got up and left when I asked him to table the documents. The fact of
the matter is that the Premier of the Province, as the leader of the government
- and this applies to every other minister, every minister of the Crown. As the
Minister of Finance and Treasury Board found out a little while ago in the last
sitting of the House. He referenced documents, clearly said that they were May
16. He even mentioned the date. In view of the fact that he mentioned those
documents, I am asking the Chair to instruct the Premier that he has used
documents to influence debate and the Standing Orders of our House and the
precedence of parliament are clear. He must table those documents. We want the
Premier to table those documents, and we want a ruling.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM CHAIR: At this point we will recess for a few
moments until we get the information and report back. Recess
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
I have reviewed the tape. Apparently the Opposition House Leader is referring
to a document in Question Period and I remind the House that points of order
pertaining to Question Period should be raised immediately after. I refer to
321 in Beauchesne, so on that, I rule out of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.
MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: In view of what has just transpired, Madam Chair, we have a
right in this House to appeal the Chairman of Committee's rulings. On page
776, Appeals to the Chairman's Rulings, "Members may appeal a ruling of
the Chairman of Committees of the Whole to the Speaker. After the Chairman has
made a ruling, a Member may rise on a point of order - which I have done - and
appeal the ruling to the Speaker. Such an appeal is not subject to debate."
Thank you, Madam Chair.
MADAM CHAIR: I will take the matter under further advisement and report
back to the House.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) verification. The rule on page 776 is very
clear. As a member in this House I have a right to appeal the Chair's ruling,
that it is not subject for debate, and the Chair must immediately leave the
Chair and appeal directly to the Speaker of the House. These are the rules under
our parliamentary tradition and precedent in this House.
MADAM CHAIR: Once again I will recess the House and report back.
Recess
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
At this point, the Chair will rise and report to the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my decision on a point of order pertaining to
the tabling of documents has been raised by the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that a
decision by her on a point of order has been appealed to the House. The Chair
will now put the appropriate question.
Is it the pleasure of the House to uphold the decision of the Chair?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare it carried.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual occurrence, what occurred
here, but an important one. I am looking for clarification on exactly what has
transpired. My understanding - and obviously that could be wrong - is that when
a ruling is made by the Chairperson, as reported to the Speaker, which has been
done, the Chair actually makes the ruling and not the House. I could be wrong
and if I am, fair enough.
The second point I would like to raise is that, what transpired -
MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) challenging the Chair.
MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am not challenging the Chair, I say to the Member for
Bellevue. I am seeking clarification, which is allowed at any time.
The second point I would like to raise, Mr. Speaker, if I could, and again
seeking your clarification at a point when you are ready, there have been many
times in this House when points of order or exceptions have been made when they
were not made right away. When I rose on a point of order, it was arising out of
Question Period. I did not interrupt Question Period with a point of order. I
left the House immediately to deal with a matter, on a personal level, which I
had to deal with. I came back in to deal with the statement that the Premier
made, and I had to run out again. I came back and raised it at the earliest
possible time.
I am just seeking for clarification that, with respect to points of order, if
that ruling is now the precedent for this Assembly and for this Parliament, if a
point of order is to be raised it must be raised immediately; because if that is
the case then a new precedent has been set for the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Honourable members, all of us, would know that it is certainly more apropos,
cause for less acrimony, cause for less confusion, when points of order are
raised during the incident that would cause rise to the point of order.
I think Your Honour has made a ruling on that. Your Honour made a ruling on
that in this session where a couple of points of order were raised, and I am
guilty myself. I raised a point of order sometime after the fact and then, I
believe, as a result of that, or subsequently or shortly thereafter Your Honour
made a ruling that it was Your Honour's preference that points of order - it
might have been stronger than that, and I think it may have been - that points
of order should be raised during the time that is necessary for a point of
order.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It seems to me that this whole debate is misconceived. It does not seem to me
that a point of order arises, in fact, until the person who has been reading
from a document actually refuses to table a document. It seems to me that a
request to table a document can be made at any time.
If I am rising in my place and speaking and I say, look, I understand the
Premier read from a document when he was reading and I ask the member if he
would table that document, the rules say that if a member reads from a document
he is required to table it. So, if someone puts forth a request and if he then
refuses, then it becomes a point of order. It seems to me that until a request
has been made and then refused, no point of order arises at all. It still can be
raised if the member, or if the Premier in this case, refuses to table documents
upon a request to do so. I do not even know if that has happened yet.
MR. SPEAKER: First of all, to the point the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi has raised, I am just wondering if he could quote to me the
Standing Order on which he would stand in the House and ask that the document be
tabled. I know of no Standing Order for that.
Secondly, the point of order that the hon. Opposition House Leader raised
regarding timing of points of order, the Chair has ruled on many occasions,
after hearing points of order and taking them under advisement, that the point
of order was, I guess, out of order because it was not raised in a timely
fashion. That is something that we have ruled on, on a number of occasions in
the past, that points of order must be raised - and I refer hon. members to
section 321 of Beauchesne, which states that they must be raised in a timely
fashion and when it is appropriate to do so.
To the process that the hon. member has talked to, I am not familiar with it
and I want to go back and do some research on our own precedents here where the
Chair's ruling in Committee has been challenged. I am not aware of that.
The process that we followed in this House, to date, is that whenever there
is a challenge to the Chair there is a motion put to the floor requesting that
the House uphold the decision of the Chair. That is the process we have followed
in the past. The Chair will certainly look at the process. The Chair, himself,
has been challenged on a number of occasions and that has been the process that
we have followed. The Chair will see if there is a precedent in this House for
the Chair of the Committee of the Whole being challenged, and if the process
that we followed today is the one that was followed in the past. I am not sure
if there is a precedent for that.
Having consulted just briefly on this, this is the decision that the Chair
has made at this time.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is a very critical issue, in my view,
from a parliamentary point of view.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon member now to get to his point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker, if members opposite would
allow me the opportunity to get to it.
The point I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, is that - I can just refer you, in
your consideration, I guess, of this matter, to page 776 of the House of Commons
practice. It is our understanding that when the Chair of Committees makes a
ruling and it is appealed - and it is spelled out here in 776 on Committees of
the Whole, Appeals of the Chairman's Rulings, that it goes directly to the
Speaker and Your Honour rules and doesn't put the question before the House.
That is the procedure as is outlined. If our custom is lacking, which it is, in
terms of our Standing Orders, then we go automatically to it. Again, I wonder if
the Speaker could recess to look at this matter before we move on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair follows -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair would like to explain the situation here as it relates to our
Standing Orders.
Our Standing Orders indicate that if there is something in our Standing
Orders that is not covered, if there is a point of order raised that is not
covered, then we go to precedent and then to the House of Commons. The Chair
believes that this is the precedent. I have asked the Table Officers to do that
and then, when I get a report, I will bring it back to the House.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we will go back to the ordinary business of the
day. We will go back, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to Motion 1.
I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to
consider certain resolutions for the Granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on
Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am pleased to rise today, Madam Chair, and speak for a few minutes with
respect to the subject matter before us, namely Bill 2,
An Act For Grant To Her
Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public
Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004, And For Other Purposes
Relating To The Public Service.
This bill, of course, is essentially the subject of debate that has taken
place in this Legislature over the last couple of days. Specifically I am
interested, Madam Chair, in what Bill 2 has to say about the education
expenditure which, according to the
schedule which is attached to the bill,
totals some $184,810,900, a significant amount of money, and money, of course,
that obviously the people of this Province hope and pray will be spent wisely
for the benefit of the young children of our Province.
In the Speech from the Throne that we heard a few days ago, Madam Chair, we
heard relatively ambitious indication by members opposite, by the members of
government opposite, in their attempt to really showcase education, which I
support. When members of a government, and when a government agenda certainly
makes it clear that it wants to give emphasis and place a sense of importance on
the education of our young children, that is something that all the people of
our Province can support, and it is encouraging to see that government hopes to
do that, but I think the critical word is the word hope. It is an expectation,
it is an ambition, and it is certainly our job, as an Official Opposition, to
ensure that this expectation and this ambition is met; and, of course, it is our
job as the Official Opposition to ensure that what ministers opposite say, and
what the leader of the government says, or what members opposite say, with
respect to this important issue will be challenged and tested on a regular
basis.
Madam Chair, perhaps one of the most realistic features affecting our
education system in our Province today is the reality of a reduced student
enrolment. I can remember when I graduated from high school in 1970. I believe
the entire pupil population in Newfoundland and Labrador just over thirty years
ago was something like 160,000 or 162,000 pupils in our Province. At that time,
we were only talking about Kindergarten to Grade 11. Now, of course, and for the
last number of years, we have the inception of Grade 12, an extra grade. Today,
our total student enrolment, I understand, is less than 90,000. So we have lost,
in the last thirty years, well in excess of 70,000 students in our primary,
elementary and in our secondary school system. These are phenomenal numbers, I
say, Madam Chair. Of course, it is that kind of challenge that any government
has to face to ensure that it can deal with the reality of a reduced student
enrolment.
Madam Chair, a number of years ago we saw in this Province education reform,
and that brought with it its difficulties, its challenges. Many people supported
it, and there were many who opposed it. Perhaps one of the strongest features of
education reform that I can consider, and I would like to reflect upon for a few
moments, is what we find in sections 25 and 26 of the Schools Act, when, as a
part of reform, it brought in the concept of school councils. Most schools, in
fact I would say all schools, are charged with the responsibility of ensuring
that councils are put in place that are made up of a school administrator, the
principal in most cases, teachers, parents, volunteers, and those individuals in
the community who want to participate in the educational process; but the idea
and the concept of a school council, in my view, and I am sure this is a view
supported by my colleagues on this side and I am sure by all members present, is
a very positive innovation in the educational system.
It is interesting when we look at that particular section, Madam Chair, we
can see exactly what the functions of a school council are. They include: to
represent the educational interests of the school; to advise on the quality of
teaching and learning in the school; to facilitate parent and community
involvement in teaching and learning in the school; and to advise the board on
matters of concern to the school and the community.
It is a serious role, I say, Madam Chair. It is a role that ought to be taken
with a degree of intensity and attention simply because, Madam Chair, these
individuals include school administrators, the instructors in the school, the
parents in the particular community, and volunteer individuals. This is the
makeup of the educational community at large. This school council is charged
with the responsibility to advise and to make comment on those features within
the educational system which are first and foremost.
Section 26, Madam Chair, continues to state that a school council shall
approve for the recommendation to the board a plan for improving teaching and
learning in the school. It states as well that a school council shall, so this
is not something which is an elective act in any way. This is a compulsory act.
The school council shall support and promote the plan approved by the board for
improving teaching and learning in the school.
It continues to state, Madam Chair, that a school council shall approve and
monitor activities for the raising of funds for the school, to consider
information respecting performance standards in the school.
Madam Chair, the role of a school council is an important one and, as I see
it, perhaps one of the more critical areas and perhaps one of the most important
aspects of school reform that we witnessed here in our Province several years
ago.
Madam Chair, as important as the role of a school council is, it is equally
important that the minister, the government of the day, pay particular attention
to what school councils say in the carrying out of their role to ensure that the
students of a particular jurisdiction and under a particular school district or
board district, to ensure that their interests are protected at all times.
Madam Chair, I am in possession of - and I am sure the minister is in
possession as well - a number of letters that have been sent to the minister,
many of his colleagues and many of my own colleagues on this side of the House.
Letters that are written by the chairs of these school councils who have voiced
their concerns, who have voiced their experiences with respect to what
weaknesses they have been able to see and what their views are in terms of an
attempt to improve the educational climate in their own particular school
district.
For example, I have a letter here from the chair of Milcrest Academy in Grand
Falls-Windsor. I have another letter here - again, many of these letters have
been circulated amongst colleagues in this House - from the chair of Indian
River High School in Springdale; a letter here from the chair of a school
council from Grenfell Intermediate school council in Grand Falls-Windsor once
again; another from Woodland Primary in Grand Falls-Windsor; and another, I
should add, from the South Coast of the Province from the school chair of St.
Joseph's School in Harbour Breton. These are just a few examples of where
interested parents, educators, administrators and educationally-minded
volunteers in given communities have come together and have put together their
thoughts, their concerns and their recommendations as to how government should
respond to the concerns that have been recognized and identified by these school
councils.
Madam Chair, it is interesting to note that a lot of them are based on the
fiscal reality we are dealing with. I would just like to refer to a couple of
the headings because much of the wording and much of the points that are raised
in the selection of these letters are similar. It speaks to the fact that
government has not kept promises made to the people during the restructuring
process; that government requires schools to meet certain criteria, yet provides
absolutely no support in terms of personnel or funding to meet the demands; that
this particular school district has been discriminated against in the area of
capital funding and that is reflected in some of their schools and what they
have been able to observe. They state, as well, that the decision-making
capacity of duly elected school boards have been hamstrung with respect to the
use and dispensation of funds resulting from operating savings as a result of
these (inaudible).
CHAIR (Butler): Order, please!
I would like to advise the hon. member that his time is up.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, if I may?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Again, what we have seen here, Mr. Chairman, are
examples of what many of our citizens in this Province, representing a variety
of communities and a representation of schools and school districts in the
Province, are saying with respect to education. The minister has a copy of these
and I would certainly encourage the minister to listen to what has been said by
these individuals, and I would be interested in hearing from the minister. The
minister has indicated that he has responded to some of them. I would be
interested in knowing exactly what his response is, so that the people of this
Province can clearly understand what the view of this government is in response
to what seriously minded people are saying with respect to this issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
Before I recognize the hon. the Premier, at this time I would like to inform
this hon. House of the ruling on a point of order raised yesterday by the hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
The Chair has reviewed the transcript of the comments of the hon. the
Minister of Human Resources and Employment to which the hon. the Opposition
House Leader referred in raising his point of order. It appears to the Chair
there is a difference of opinion between two honourable gentlemen and there is
therefore no point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to make the few comments I was going to make earlier today
before we got sidetracked in some parliamentary haranguing.
The point I was trying to make, Mr. Chairman, was this, that Interim Supply
is important because it allows us to keep some commitments through the next
period of time while we take the seventy-five hours between now and May 24
weekend to have the full Budget debate. I am glad to see the way the debate is
going with respect to the intervention just made by the education critic talking
about education issues and seeking further clarification. That is a useful
intervention.
With respect to commitments, which is a burning public issue today, Mr.
Chair, everybody knows what our position is. Everybody knows the commitments we
have laid out in the last two years; in the Throne Speech last week. We will
hear more of it in a couple of days in the Budget on Thursday. But, what people
are concerned about is the Leader of the Opposition, who has said inside this
House and outside the House, that he will not - and he repeated it again this
morning on an Open Line show - be bound by commitments made by this government.
The phrase that he is using is that it will have to go through due diligence.
Due diligence. Nice highfalutin words for the witch hunt. Nobody is safe.
Nothing sacred. Nothing guaranteed. Everything up for full examination. That is
what due diligence really means, and there is nobody fooled by it. It means no
commitment to anything. It means zero-based budgeting. Start over. Nothing that
is there today is guaranteed to be there tomorrow.
Now, that is what it means, Mr. Chair, but the commitments that he has given
are as important and instructive as those that he says he will not give. I was
mentioning earlier that when challenged by NAPE and CUPE, does it mean the
raises that we got are okay? Oh, yes, the raises will be guaranteed. But, if you
ask the next question: Will there be any of us working here to collect the
raise? No commitment on that. There is no guarantee that anybody who is working
and providing any service on behalf of the government for the people of the
Province today will be here if you follow through a due diligence process. So,
they are not saying what they stand for, what they believe is important, or what
must exist.
Let me give you an example. Back in November, speaking to the students at
Memorial University, where we have instituted a 20 per cent tuition cut - we
have said in the Throne Speech there is going to be another 5 per cent tuition
cut in September. A political promise from this government. It will be read
again in the Budget on Thursday, another 5 per cent tuition cut coming in
September. In November, before that 5 per cent tuition cut is ever instituted,
the Leader of the Opposition, at Memorial visiting the students, said: However,
Williams could not promise anymore fee reductions, saying he is very concerned
about the financial situation he might find the Province in if elected Premier.
So, is there a commitment? Because I am sure the students, just like NAPE and
CUPE did, will say: Is our 5 per cent tuition reduction going to be honoured? I
am sure they are going to ask that question. Every time he gets asked a
question, he says: Oh, yes, that one is okay. I didn't mean that one. Every
time he is asked, he says: I didn't mean that one. So we will get to the
bottom of this, Mr. Chair, and it is important to do so. It is important in
Interim Supply. It is important in the Budget. It is important in the Province.
There had been some commitments made to Ms Marshall, the former Auditor
General. In a public interview in February, 2003, on CBC Radio and I quote: I
have had preliminary discussions with members of the Progressive Conservative
Party just to get the general feel for the policies they might implement,
because I would only go in and become a candidate for them if I thought the
things that were important to me had a really good chance of getting
implemented. The interviewer said: So, you think you have that commitment from
Mr. Williams? Yes, I think I do, said Ms Marshall.
So there is a commitment to Ms Marshall to run the government the way she has
been describing it in the Auditor General's reports for the last ten years,
which says that if there is a flood in Badger, and if there is no money voted
for it in the budget - remember now, they are against special warrants. People
remember them arguing against special warrants; how bad they are; how terrible
it is. Well, if there is no money in the budget, and Badger floods, Ms Marshall
says you cannot do anything about it until the next budget. So, we should have
told the people in January month in Badger: Sorry about the flood, folks. Sorry
about the fact that you have nowhere to live but we cannot give any money to
open up the Carmelite House in Grand Falls because it is not in the budget. We
have to wait until we get another budget on April 1 and then we will come back
and talk to you. That is how an auditor would run it, you see. No political
judgement. No commitment. No compassion for people. No concern. Run it by the
book. Check the numbers if it is not there. That is what she has written
consistently for ten years. What is important is: So, you think you have a
commitment from Mr. Williams to do things that are important to you and to run
the government the way that you think it would be? Yes, I think I do. That is
why I would like to be a candidate. So, there is a commitment to the Marshall
plan.
I wonder about a couple of other things. I wonder if there are any
commitments to Inco and Voisey's Bay. This will be very telling, Mr. Chairman,
because publicly the Leader of the Opposition has said this would never happen
on my watch. It would never happen. Now, there are going to be some questions
asked of the Leader of the Opposition about commitments. His commitment to the
people of the Province is to say that I am going to go into the government and
turn it upside down. With respect to Voisey's Bay, he said, I am going to go
through every one of those legally binding agreements and commitments again
because I am not going to honour those commitments. I am going to go through due
diligence. I am going to check them out all over again. That is his public
presentation.
However, I wonder what he said to Mr. Hand and Inco when he met with them
privately. Now, he has not talked to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
about the fact that he met with Mr. - maybe he has not even talked to his
caucus. I can see the look on their faces. They are hearing it for the first
time, Mr. Chairman. They are hearing it for the -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER GRIMES: Oh, so the Member for Kilbride knows about it. The Member
for Bonavista South never heard tell of it before. The Member for Trinity North
never heard tell of it before. The Member for St. John's South is nodding that
he never heard tell of it before. So, maybe his little henchman from Kilbride,
who was caught out today dead wrong - usually pretty good, today dead wrong - he
heard about it. I guess Ms Marshall must have heard about it because the
Marshall plan is going to be implemented, so the rest of the caucus did not hear
tell of it, but I can tell you that he will have to explain to the people of the
Province what he said to Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel privately, because it is
a very different scenario. They just announced they are going ahead. They just
announced they have gone through the bankable feasibility study. They just
announced they are proud to proceed, and I wonder what the Leader of the
Opposition is going to say about what he said to Inco privately about that. Did
he tell them that you better be careful about spending your money because I am
going to examine all your contracts again; I am going to turn the place upside
down? I don't think so. I think there are at least two of them.
There is the one that says these great, brave things publicly and there is
probably another one who, in the private, quiet confines with someone like Mr.
Hand, says, you know, I had to say that kind of stuff - wink, wink, nod, nod -
politically, but don't worry, we are with you. You are doing the right thing
here. You have nothing to fear from us, if I ever become the Premier. You will
find me a great fellow to get along with. I understand business. You have
nothing to fear from me, I am a wonderful man. I bet you there are at least two
of them. There are at least two of them, Mr. Chairman, no doubt about it.
Then the caucus, the whole caucus - and tax breaks for the rich, which they
did not want to talk about before Christmas. The Member for Ferryland, who is
not a left-winger but a right-winger and proud of it, he is not left-of-centre,
he is right-of-centre and proud of it, and has been every since he got into
politics. He believes in it and I respect him for it. The Member for Kilbride is
now saying: Wait until we drop this policy book.
What are they going to do? Get a book like this, pick it up and oh, my
goodness, they are going to drop it. They are going to drop this policy book and
it is going to be left-of-centre. It is going to be left-of-centre, so the
left-of-centre book - but I will tell you one thing that is in the
left-of-centre book because it was in The Telegram on Saturday. In the
left-of-centre book, Mr. Chairman, there is a commitment to Archean Resources,
one of the richest companies in the Province, to get further tax breaks, to keep
more of the money. A debate that they started to have before Christmas, most of
them changed their mind because they did not like it. The Member for Ferryland
still supports it, but I guess the left-wing, the left-of-centre Blue Book,
cannot be going to meet that, but there is a commitment. The representatives of
Archean Resources, right in The Telegram , said -
CHAIR: Order, please!
The Premier's time has expired.
PREMIER GRIMES: - we have a commitment from the PC caucus.
I will come back to it later, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I am proud to participate in the debate on
Interim Supply. After the performance that I just watched by the Premier, if he
wants to get up and take the next hour to go on and wax eloquently, like he just
did, I will gladly give him the opportunity.
In the last few minutes I just heard that, if we were the government -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: I just heard the Premier say that if we were the
government, and Ms Marshall, who is our candidate in Topsail, was part of the
government, we would have said to the people of Badger: I am sorry, you have to
wait until the next budget before we can help you. This is really, really
unbelievable.
Some of the things that we have talked about in the last ten years in this
Legislature, certainly the last election, I can tell you the things that we
would implement, that Ms Marshall talked about, and it was the notion of
accountability. It was a notion where we do not award political contracts to
friends and break the Public Tender Act, which this government did, and members
of it did. Those are the things that we have talked about in terms of
accountability.
Mr. Chairman, the Premier goes on to say - and I appreciate his latest
description of myself. In the last two years since the Member for Humber West,
the Leader of the Opposition, has become leader of the party, I have been called
by him: a puppet leader, the real leader, babysitter, and today he calls me a
henchman. Mr. Chairman, I think that says more about the Premier of the Province
than it does about anybody else.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Earlier this week, his Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board, on Thursday, got up and said - guess what she said? I say to the
members of my caucus, and members of the House, and the public who may be
watching, just remind them, she indicated that if we were to become the
government there would be very little affordable homes for people, and that more
people would be sleeping on the streets and under vents, and I think that speaks
more to the fearmongering of the government and the President of Treasury Board,
the Minister of Finance, than it does anything else.
In the last ten years, in my time in the House of Assembly here, certainly
the last session and in particular this session, I have seen and witnessed a
lot, but the personal attacks that are coming forward are absolutely
unbelievable.
The Premier has indicated today that we are going to be a zero-based
budgeting sort of crowd. I challenge him and members of the government today to
table where that is coming from. They cannot, because it does not exist. Trying
to leave an impression with people that due diligence means that nobody is safe,
that nobody in the public service is safe, that nobody in government is safe,
that the delivery of public services is not safe.
If anybody in this House truly wants to know what is not safe, let's look
at the hundreds of millions of dollars that this government has wasted, and let's
ask some questions. Would that money have been better off in shortening heart
surgery lists, if it was not wasted by protecting friends and giving them
contracts? Who has jeopardized the health and safety of people in this Province?
Could that money have been better well used to improve hospital facilities,
providing more front-line services, more nurses where nurses were needed, and
better salaries for physicians if that money was not wasted by this government?
Let me ask the Premier this: When he was Minister of Tourism and made a
decision to unilaterally fire people, that cost the Treasury of the Province a
million dollars, doesn't he think for a moment that million dollars could have
been better used somewhere else?
When Works, Services and Transportation purchased a ship called the Hull
100 and they spent over $7 million trying to get it up to standard, and a
person in the minister's department says, we are praying it won't cost too
much more, is that the type of government people want? That they are praying
that it will not cost too much more and it is still not in the water going to
float.
Nobody on this side is going to sit down and listen to the type of
fearmongering that the Premier has gotten on with. Not only that, I do not
believe for a second that the people of the Province want to see in a Premier
what we just saw a few moments ago. That is what I believe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, since 1996, I recall being asked by former
Premier Brian Tobin to go to a Lower Churchill announcement - $1 million press
conference. I called him Hollywood Brian; he lost his cool on it. He and his
Cabinet spent $1 million to announce a deal that did not even happen.
In the next round of renegotiations - because we spent two-and-a-half years
of people living in hope for that - in the last round of negotiations, in which
the current Premier tried to get an arrangement that was acceptable to the
people of the Province, all of those studies, how much money has been spent on
engineering and feasibility studies and everything else associated with Lower
Churchill? We can only assume, based on information that came out, it is in the
vicinity of $90 million to $120 million. Do you know why we really do not know?
Because Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is exempt from the Freedom of
Information Act, and this most accountable, open and transparent government will
not put them in so that we can get at that information. The type of waste that
has occurred.
This is the same Premier who, during a nurses' strike in this Legislature,
did exactly what he is doing now. He believes he has a little point, a little
issue. He is going to rise up every ten minutes on it. That is fair enough. I
congratulate him, tell him to get up and do it, because if he wants to continue
as he did we will give him all the time he needs.
That is the same Premier who now sits on the high horse, that he and his
government are the ones that have the best labour relations and labour
collective bargaining strategy, while he stood in his place in this Legislature
and, in a draconian measure, legislated nurses back to work and almost incited a
riot by what he said to the nurses filling the galleries. And he wants to think
that now that he has reinvented himself! I remember that, nurses in the Province
remember that, and everybody in this Legislature remembers that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, has he made a commitment, as our Leader has
made, to the people of NAPE and members of the Public Service and CUPE, that
under his government he would never legislate them back to work, that the
differences that government may have from time to time with any of its public
employees, above all else, above everything else, that he would not, and his
government would not, legislate them back to work. I haven't heard that. I
have heard it, not from him but from the Leader of the Opposition and the Member
for Humber West, and he should be commended for it.
Mr. Chairman, I recall leading up to the last election, there were no rants
from the Premier or any of his members or ministers, leading up to the 1999
election, for our Blue Book. Do you know why? I will tell you why. Because they,
in their own minds, felt that there was no possibility that they could lose the
government, that we weren't a threat to them. As a matter of fact, I remember
walking out of this Legislature before the House closed and the Premier and
others saying: There will be four of you back here. They weren't shouting and
screaming then for our policy book. They didn't need it, they felt. Do you
know why they are shouting and screaming now? Because they know that they are
threatened, their positions in government are threatened, their jobs are
threatened and the cushy cushions under their backsides are threatened, because
the people of the Province want real change. That is what is going on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I tell you something else, that after the last general
election there weren't four of us here but fourteen of us. After our policy
book was tabled they didn't rant and roar for it then, they just went ahead
and hijacked it. Do you know something? I compliment them for it.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. E. BYRNE: There were good ideas in that. Let me tell you, any time
that we have a good idea you are welcome to it, Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will just make one other short intervention today, because I know there are
others who would like to speak in this debate. I would welcome the Leader of the
Opposition rising from his seat and joining the debate, instead of having the
babysitter do it for him, as he just did again, Mr. Chairman.
It is pretty clear that the Member for Kilbride is one of those who does get
to talk to the Leader of the Opposition from time to time. Most of the others
don't, even though they would pretend that they all voted that Ron Dawe would
not be acceptable as a candidate. The Member for Windsor-Springdale, I am sure
he is proud to go around and tell the people of Windsor-Springdale that he sat
in judgement on another individual and said, I sat in a caucus and spoke out
against Ron Dawe and why he should not be allowed to run for the Conservative
Party and voted for a motion that said: Under no circumstances should he be
allowed to do it. I am sure he is very proud of that, and I am sure he would
have liked it and would have really appreciated it if it was three or four years
ago and it was him. The others who sat in the caucus said: No, no, we do not
want that fellow Hunter. You know, he is no good. He cannot sit with us. We do
not want him. He is not allowed to run. I do not care if he wants to run or not.
But, we have to sit here now and we have to decide who in Newfoundland and
Labrador is worthy to run for public office.
I am sure he will be proud to go around Windsor-Springdale and say that, as
well as the Member for Bonavista North. I do not think anyone made any
judgements about him; no other saddened judgement about him. I am sure he would
not want to, but all of a sudden he gets elected, and takes it upon himself to
say: Now, I used the democratic process. I went through it but I feel now that I
can absolutely turn around and tell somebody else that you cannot go through a
democratic process. Not in this party, you cannot. Not in this party. He voted
for it in the caucus, Mr. Chairman. Everyone of them voted for it.
The Member for Conception Bay South, I wonder what speech he made. He just
got elected a little while ago. I wonder what speech he made, all of sudden in
being a member for a few months to say: I am a member but I have enough
experience now to know that Ron Dawe, who was a member for ten years for their
party, is not fit. Is not fit to even run for the party and let the people in
the district decide whether or not he should come into this Legislature. Now,
that is what we are about. That is what we are about, Mr. Chairman.
Again, getting back to the former Auditor General, Ms Marshall. Let me give
you another example that was criticized in Auditor General reports and that she
now has the ear of the government, the ear of the Leader of the Opposition, if
they ever formed a government, to enact. Air quality in the schools. There are
references in Auditor General reports to air quality in the schools. If the air
quality goes astray because there is some bacteria, there is some mould, maybe a
bit of water gets in, the roof or the windows leak, and there is something wrong
with the air quality, if it is not in the Budget for the Education Investment
Committee, the Auditor General says: Too bad. Wait until the next budget. The
former Auditor General, that is what she said. She has the ear of the Leader of
the Opposition and the caucus to say that is the way we should run the
government. So, never mind those students. What are you going to do with them?
Let them sit there and get sick or cancel school for a year until the next
budget comes in and you can do something. That is what we are talking about, Mr.
Chairman.
Today, the Leader of the Opposition, again, jumped at an opportunity to go on
the Open Line program after Mr. Hanlon to say I gave a speech at the NAPE
convention when I said I would honour their contracts. I would not use the
Legislature to roll back any wages like the Liberals did ten years ago. Eleven
years ago now. Actually, twelve years ago. But they have two years of experience
with me in the government that I lead and they know two things - because we have
had strikes. Strikes, by the way, are legal and proper when they go through a
procedure. There is nothing illegal or improper about a strike if you cannot
resolve the differences beforehand.
We had members of the Opposition with a school strike last year that lasted
for nine weeks, not in St. John's but elsewhere, out meeting with school
council reps calling upon the government to legislate them back to work. Don't
you remember the speech? Do you remember the speeches, any of you? Do you
remember the speeches you made? Do you remember the representations you made on
behalf of the school councils and the parents, that this has gone on long enough
and the government should legislate you back to work? All of a sudden they
forget. All of a sudden the Member for Kilbride is up saying: Oh, we have given
a commitment that we would not use the Legislature. Well, the easiest commitment
in the world to give, you have never been here. You people have never been here.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who said it?
PREMIER GRIMES: Oh, they know who said it, Mr. Chairman. It is not for
me. Each one of them knows the speeches that they made. I did not attribute
anything to any individual member. They can stand up and say themselves whether
they talked to parents about legislating back to work during the strike last
year.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just so the Premier does not feel compelled, if anybody over here made a
speech that he can point to and say that someone said: legislate them back to
work, stand up and say it. Don't say I am not going to do it. You just want to
leave the impression out there. Why don't you just tell who it was, what was
said, where it was said, when it was said, and in what context it was said? By
all means, let's hear it.
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The people sitting around you are all hon. members just like me and you and
they can speak for themselves. I will tell you this, they were brave enough to
meet with the parent groups a year ago and lobby the government to legislate
them back to work. Why don't they jump up today and make the same speech, Mr.
Chairman? Because it is different now, the lights are on and they do not want to
say the same things.
Mr. Chairman, I will tell you this, the unions do have that commitment from
me because when I was lobbied by parent groups and MHAs on the other side of the
House to legislate them back to work, I said absolutely not. I have too much
respect for the collective bargaining process. If these people broke the law, if
they were out there illegally, if they had not gone through the right processes
then I would not hesitate to legislate them back to work.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER GRIMES: I am talking about leadership that I am providing. You
are talking about the past as usual, because you are frightened to death of what
has happened the last two years because you know it is the best leadership that
has been provided in this Province in years and you cannot stand it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: You absolutely cannot stand it, and you know the
difference.
Mr. Chairman, the speech to the NAPE convention, what the Leader of the
Opposition left out today on Open Line and elsewhere were the weasel words. He
is going to honour the contract all right. He is going to honour the contract.
That is what he is saying now. He will not use the Legislature to roll it back
but there is a negotiation coming up in the fall. Maybe the negotiation is going
to be a 5 per cent reduction. Maybe the negotiation is going to be no raise but
lots of layoffs. It will be negotiated, I guess.
The weasel words were these, here is the rest of the speech that he was so
proud to make as Leader of the Opposition to the NAPE convention. This was after
the commitments were given. "If some unexpected, unanticipated
circumstances arise that make it impossible for the government to honour all the
terms of a collective agreement...". He is suggesting that it is not
outside the realm of possibility. If something should arise, I will - here it
is, here is another commitment. Not that I will make sure your contract is in
place and that you have a job, "...I will come back to you and ask for your
help and cooperation in finding a resolution...". There is no commitment
that the contract stays in place. He is just going to talk to them about how he
changes it before he - his own words, Mr. Chairman. That is what he did not say
today, that he was so proud to say a year-and-a-half ago. That is why there is
no commitment. That is why he is really telling the truth as the Leader of the
Opposition.
I would like for him to stand up. I would like for him to rise from his place
and enter into the debate. We are all equal in this Legislature. He can rise
right after I sit down, instead of having the Member for Kilbride babysit for
him, explaining things for him, go out and be his little watchdog, his little
henchman, and other things. Instead of doing that he can stand up himself and
tell the people of the Province right now what he believes in, and what he will
or will not do. I bet you any money, Mr. Chairman, that when I sit down - I bet
you whatever money I have in my pocket today, which is not as much as some
people have - the Leader of the Opposition will not be the next one to rise and
enter into this debate, Mr. Chairman. I can pretty well guarantee it. There is
not much doubt about that.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Premier knows, because he is here - while he will not say it because he
is performing for the cameras - that the Leader of the Opposition is not even in
the House of Assembly. It is a standing order, standing rule - let me say to
members opposite, the Premier is not here all the time either but he knows that
he cannot refer to members who are not here directly or indirectly. Mr. Chair, I
ask you to rule on that because he is leaving the impression clearly that the
Leader of the Opposition will not rise. It is impossible for him to rise when he
is not here, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: I am quite familiar, Mr. Chair, as all hon. members are, with
the rule which requests us or demands that we not refer to the absence of a
member. I never heard the Premier talk about the absence of a member. I never
heard the word mentioned. Many times a member is not here in the House, not in
the physical location of the House but they could be in the caucus room. I am
assuming that is where the Leader of the Opposition was today and I am assuming
that is what the leader thought. Nobody on this side of the House had any desire
to refer to the Leader of the Opposition being absent, Mr. Chair. I have been
around too long for that and I am sure the hon the Premier has. All the hon. the
Premier was doing was challenging the Leader of the Opposition to speak. It was
the Opposition House Leader that brought reference to the absence because as I
said, as far as - we are not omnipotent. We do not know if a member is in the
precinct of the House, which is what we would have thought. I am quite certain
that is what the Premier thought, that the Leader of the Opposition was in the
precinct of the House, as he normally is, and no reference to his absence.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The Chair has heard both sides and I challenge all hon. members - we know
that we are not suppose to reference members by not being in the House but on
this particular point I would rule that there is no point of order.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: No, there was a few seconds or maybe one minute left on the clock
when I got interrupted with a point of order. I will honour that one minute.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: I am sorry, the hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do appreciate the thirty seconds or so to clue up. I was cluing up my
remarks, in any event, and inviting the Leader of the Opposition to participate
in the debate. I believe that his record would show, with respect to bills that
are before the Legislature, I do not believe he has spoken on any of them. He
participates in Question Period.
Here is Interim Supply, which the other speakers suggest is critically
important to the people of the Province, and all I am doing again is inviting
the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and speak in the debate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was sitting here this past couple of days listening to the Premier, and I
have to say that the Premier is a master of manipulation with words. I will
refer to Hansard here, and how he tries to twist the facts. A prime example, of
course, is when he was on his feet just a minute ago when he talked about the
schools being on strike last year and how we wanted to legislate them back to
work when actually that is not the case at all.
For example, when the nurses were on strike a few years ago, who led the
charge in this House of Assembly to legislate them back to work? The current
Premier. I believe he may have been the Minister of Education at the time, but
he was the henchman at that point in time for Brian Tobin. He was the one who
led the charge. He can get up and twist it, trying to say that we are the ones
who want to do these types of things.
Another example, and I will refer to Hansard, again directly from the Premier's
own words. These were his comments when he was talking about the situation with
respect to the commitments made by government and the response to the Throne
Speech by the Leader of the Opposition. He said here - and he is trying to quote
our leader - I, for one, and my caucus, will not be bound by commitments made by
government. He goes on again to say, in another section: I will not be bound by
commitments made by government.
Those are his words, trying to say what our leader was saying.