Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 1 April 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 9)
2004-04-01
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 1, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 9
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
I would like to rule on a point of order which was raised by the Opposition
House Leader on Wednesday, March 31, regarding private member's motions.
The Opposition House Leader raised a point of order seeking clarification on
the Standing Orders relevant to private member's motions. These motions are
referenced in Standing Orders 63 and 64 and by definition, all private member's
motions should be presented to the House by private members. Thus, unless leave
is granted at the time that notice is given and leave is further granted on the
day in which the debate occurs, all such notices and motions should be presented
by private members. Thus, the point of order raised by the Opposition House
Leader is valid.
In addition, the Speaker finds it necessary to reference Standing Order 63(3)
wherein there is a clear directive that the Government House Leader or the
Opposition House Leader, as the case may be, shall announce to the House on the
Monday before the Wednesday of the week in which a private member's motion is
to be debated, the motion for debate. In the past, this directive in the
Standing Orders has been varied rather consistently and albeit with leave and
with acceptable explanations, the Speaker finds that in fairness to all hon.
members that greater attention be given to this aspect of our Standing Orders.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have Statements by Members in the
following order: The Member for Port de Grave; the Member for Trinity-Bay de
Verde; the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; the Member for Terra Nova; the Member
for Grand Bank; and the Member for Gander.
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize the contributions made by the people in the
Trinity-Conception area in the recent Run For The Janeway 2004, held in
Shearstown. This year, 468 ATVs and ski-doos were registered, almost 200 more
than last year. To date, the funds raised a grand total of $65,055.89.
Much appreciation must go to the dedicated organizers, the volunteers, the
riders and the community who have made this event so successful.
For the third year in a row, Mr. Speaker, seventeen-year-old Bradley Hussey
of Clarke's Beach raised the most money, an amazing $10,019.25. A new
ventilator will be purchased to transport babies from regional hospitals to the
Janeway.
I ask this hon. House to extend congratulations to the many, many people who
made this possible for the Janeway Children's Hospital Foundation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure to rise in this House today to congratulate two
constituents for their outstanding achievements.
Firstly to Ashley Reid of New Harbour, who received the Provincial Youth of
the Year Award on March 18. Ashley is a Grade 11 student at Crescent Collegiate.
She was nominated by her guidance counselor who recognized her for her hard work
and determination within her school and her community through Allied Youth,
Student Council and many other activities.
I also want to congratulate Harry Strong of Old Perlican who received the
prestigious Order of Canada. As CEO of the Canadian Coast Guard, Auxiliary, he
was instrumental in earning for the Auxiliary the reputation as being one of
best lifesaving operations in Canada. Harry is very committed to local, national
and international search and rescue communities. For twenty years, Harry has
selflessly volunteered to saving lives.
I would like to ask all hon. members of this House to join me in extending
our appreciation for the volunteer efforts of Harry Strong and Ashley Reid.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize a constituent of mine, Megan Roome of Grand
Falls-Windsor, on being named the provincial winner of Vendez Vos Ide. This
French version of the "Market Your Thoughts" business essay
competition is co-sponsored by Canadian Parents for French and the Y-Enterprise
Centre and showcases the ability of French Immersion students to communicate in
both official languages of our country. Having this ability will no doubt make
them more marketable for future employment in their chosen field.
Megan's concept product, a warming system for car doors, was conceived
during a ride to school one day in which her car door was frozen shut. Megan
researched winter temperatures in the Province and conducted a survey of
potential customers, who all said they would purchase the product if it were
available. She included a detailed diagram of her door warmer prototype, which
was similar to a block heater with the wires connected around the door.
Mr. Speaker, Megan's entrepreneurial spirt at this young age -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Megan's entrepreneurial spirit at this young age, and her ability to
communicate her ideas in both official languages, shows that with continued hard
work and dedication there is no doubt we will again hear of her accomplishments
in the years to come.
I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in congratulating Megan
Roome on a job well done, and as well express appreciation to the Canadian
Parents for French and the Y-Enterprise Centre for sponsoring this worthwhile
event that showcases the talent of French Immersion students of our Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a wonderful friend from the
community of Glovertown, Dawson Perry, who passed away on Sunday, March 28, at
the age of fifty-six years.
Daws, as he was known to everyone, was a member of the Alexander Bay Lions
Club, a Scout Leader for many years, a member of the Glovertown Volunteer Fire
Brigade, and a member of the Salvation Arm Men's Service Group.
Daws loved to spend time helping others. He looked forward to the Santa Claus
Parade every year where he was responsible for driving the local school
Christmas parade float, which he did drive this past Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, Daws fought a courageous battle with cancer for seven years and
showed great strength of character. The 500-plus people who attended his funeral
yesterday was a testimony to the way that people admired and loved him. Daws
will be missed by everyone who knew him in the area.
I would ask the members of the House to join with me in extending our
sympathy to his wife Mona, and sons Bill, Jimmy and Jeff.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Grand Bank
Heritage Society on their initiative to establish a Mariner's Memorial, which
will be located in Grand Bank.
Sculptor Luben Boykov designed the memorial, and landscape architect Fred
Hann was contracted to do the landscape elements. Work on Phase 1 is expected to
begin this fall. The memorial will be located on the grounds of the historic
George C. Harris House.
Mr. Speaker, given the town's history in the fishing and marine industries,
recognizing the fishermen and mariners in this tangible way is most appropriate.
The memorial will also highlight the role played by the women who were left for
months at a time to care and provide for their families while their partners
were at sea. It is well known that many fishermen paid the ultimate sacrifice in
providing a livelihood for their families. The memorial will contain the names
of more than 300 seamen lost at sea.
I also congratulate and express sincere thanks to the many volunteers in
Grand Bank who have given their time and energy to work on this very worthwhile
project.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating the Grand Bank Heritage Society and wish them every success with
this most worthwhile initiative.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand before the House to bring to
your attention the accomplishments of a young athlete from my District of
Gander, who has shown us all what commitment to dreams is all about. Sara Brown
of Gander recently competed in the Special Olympic Canada Winter Games in
Charlottetown, P.E.I. She represented Newfoundland and Labrador as a member of
the Gander Wings Special Olympics Club and impressed everyone with her abilities
in the snowshoeing events as she walked away with four medals.
As a result of this incredible performance, Sara Brown has been asked to
represent not only Gander and Newfoundland and Labrador, but now has been asked
to represent Canada in the International Special Olympics to be held in Japan.
Sara said that she simply set out to do her best in this competition and, as
it turns out, her best was most certainly among the best in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, Sara's accomplishments showcase for us exactly what can happen
when we commit ourselves completely to a goal. In this case, that goal has
brought attention to the -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. O'BRIEN: By leave.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. O'BRIEN: - Gander District and to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask the members of the House to join me in
extending congratulations and best wishes on her accomplishment of four medals
and for being chosen to represent Canada at the upcoming International Special
Olympic Competition in Japan.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately today we have the largest strike in the history of
the Province, and we have workers on the streets feeling outright betrayal by
the government and particularly, by the Premier as the leader of the government.
At the NAPE convention the Premier promised to consult with the unions if he had
a problem. Actually, he did say if some unexpected, unanticipated circumstance
arises, I will come back to you and ask for your help and cooperation in finding
a resolution we can all live with. Mr. Speaker, on January 5, with no
consultation with anybody, unions, not even his own Cabinet and caucus, he
announced a wage freeze which is the start of what led to this strike today.
Can the Premier understand why the union members might feel a little bit
betrayed today by him?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition sees fit to
inflame a very tense situation. None of us are very -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I do not find it funny. The Member for Port de Grave, I
do not find this issue funny at all. The Member for Bellevue, I do not find this
issue funny at all. Not at all.
I do not know why you are laughing but this is a very serious issue. It is
unfortunate that you see fit to try and inflame the situation. I noticed what
you have done, you did absolutely nothing to try and appease this situation, to
try and bring it to an agreement because if the truth were known, you did not
want to see us achieve a settlement. You wanted the people on the street, that
is what you said. Now if you are going to quote me -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: If you are going to quote me from a speech, do not
leave out something in the middle of the sentence. If some unexpected
circumstances arise then you skipped the last part and you went to the next
sentence, I will come back to you: That make it impossible for the government to
honour all the terms of a collective agreement. That makes a big difference
because right now we do not have a collective agreement. So, you are fabricating
the words that are here. That is what you are doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: If you are going to state the facts to this House of
Assembly and to the people of this Province, state them all and state them
clearly and state the truth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is convenient, and always is, for the Premier to try to blame all of his
failures on someone else.
Mr. Speaker, I heard him mention earlier today, and I am glad he mentioned in
the Legislature, that currently we do not have a collective agreement. I would
ask that he look at
Article 44 of the General Service Agreement that expired
yesterday which says that this agreement is in full effect until a new
collective agreement is arrived at. Does he know anything about the collective
agreements that he is responsible for, as the head of the government, Mr.
Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, on September 25,
last year as well, the Premier led the unions and the people of the Province to
generally believe there would be no cuts. The quote, Mr. Speaker - and it is
important to say this when I put this question - is: You know we can cut
expenditures only so far, and I think a lot of that has already been done. It
has been pared down to the bone.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The question, because the Premier finished by saying, if you go too far you
basically cut the heart out of the Province: With 700 direct layoffs and 4,000
more jobs slashed, can the Premier understand why the people of the Province
feel that he has been misleading them and that they have been betrayed by this
Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition doesn't want to hear
the attempt that we made, the very genuine attempt that we made yesterday to
reach a collective agreement with the members.
The other point which you make is, if we, in fact, have a collective
agreement. They have gone on strike, they have actually gone out on strike. So,
with respect to the collective agreement they have gone on strike.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: That is the point he is making to you.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is the point we are making.
Last night we went on salaries. We knew they wanted a term. We asked for a
term of two years because that was the term we felt we needed a wage freeze for.
They asked for an extended term of four to five years. We went to that term
because we wanted to give them the security of knowing that we would provide an
increase in years three, four and five.
On the issue of concessions, we gave on severance, we gave on the issue of
sick leave and the question of the pensions. Indexing was taken off the table.
We looked at the job re-evaluation. We looked at all issues. We made every
genuine attempt we could..
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: We did not want our people on the street, Mr. Speaker,
under any circumstances.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it isn't a matter of what they were giving
yesterday, it is that they finally decided to stop taking things away, which has
caused the problem in the first place. I am glad to see they are making some
limited progress, because it has been a mess since January 5 caused by this one
person.
The problem again, Mr. Speaker, is this: They don't trust the Premier and
they don't believe what he is saying.
Again he didn't answer the last question. I will repeat it. The Premier has
said we are already cut to the bone; his words, Mr. Speaker. Everybody in the
Province heard his words. The Finance Minister yesterday, however, stated: We
have too many people working in the public service and even if we had a surplus
we should -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It is impossible for the Chair to hear all of the questions, but I do ask the
Leader of the Opposition now to complete his question in about five to seven
seconds.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The question again is: Who should the people of the Province believe, the
Premier who said we are cut to the bone or the Finance Minister who said even if
we were flush in cash we should reduce the size of the public service because it
is the biggest public service in Canada? Which one speaks for the government,
Mr. Speaker? Which one of them?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, how the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the former Premier, the
unelected Premier who caused this mess, can be so hypocritical?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The mandateless' Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In August of 2000, the Leader of the Opposition made a statement. These are
the Leader of the Opposition's words, "We are on an extremely dangerous
course..."
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Would the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo let me
just at least have a say here in this House? You don't mind do you?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I quote the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.
"We are on an extremely dangerous course which, if not contained, could
lead to financial disaster for Newfoundland and Labrador." That is the
legacy the unelected Premier gave to this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I should not need to remind the Premier, the people did not elect him
to talk about the past, they elected him to get on with the new approach.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Today, he has made a mess of it, Mr. Speaker. He has made an
absolute mess of it and he will not answer the questions that are being put to
him.
Again, Mr. Speaker, who speaks for the government and which is the answer?
The Premier has said: we would love to give the public servants a raise but I
just do not have the money. However, in the Maclean's magazine
article he told
all of Canada that he believes our public service got too much, too fast. They
are already overpaid.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Now, which is it? Answer that question instead of talking
about the past!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the reality of what we have inherited from
this past government -
MR. REID: Go on boy, answer the question.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Would the Member for Twillingate & Fogo allow me to
at least get started?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The legacy that has been left by the former minister of Fogo-Twillingate and
the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition. For fiscal performance last
year, they predicted a -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If Question Periods are to function effectively we have to have relative
opportunities for both sides of the House. One side to ask the questions and the
other side to be able to give the answers. This afternoon we are having a great
deal of friction. The hon. the Premier has the floor and asks that he be heard
in this Chamber when his turn comes to speak.
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The legacy that has been left by this former government is that instead of an
accrued deficit of $666 million, we are dealing with an accrued deficit of
$958.7 million. That is the reality. Three-hundred million dollars in the
difference.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier to finish his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The difference in the cash deficit has gone from $286 million to $406
million. Those are the facts. That is reality. Those are the facts.
As well, we have offered a raise, a good raise, to our public servants.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: We put 7 per cent on the table.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, what the people of the Province want is for their new Premier to get
on with the new approach and the solutions that he successfully made people
believe that he had.
Now, Mr. Speaker, which is it? See if he will answer this question, because
he has not answered a single question yet today. See if the Premier, with the
new approach and the answers and the solutions, will answer this question, and I
am glad he raised the points he just raised. On Province-wide television on
January 5, the Premier stated that the cash deficit for the Budget that finished
yesterday, that the Liberals brought in, was $220 million over the estimate;
however, in his own minister's documents and the Budget that he read two days
ago, it shows that the Budget for the year ending yesterday came in almost $100
million under the target -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear
MR. GRIMES: - and it is on statement two on page three, in case they do
not know where to find it in their own documents. So, which one is it? Who is
right, the Premier or the Finance Minister? Which one of them, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will let him know who is right. The Auditor General is right, the
Toronto-Dominion Bank is right, and this government is right, when it says 25
per cent of every dollar is dedicated to debt servicing cost.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell him in the fiscal year just ended, the reason why
the fiscal situation improved from November to now. There are three basic
reasons, Mr. Speaker. Number one, approximately -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: They do not want to hear the answer, Mr. Speaker.
Three reasons, I will give them, why. Number one: $26 million identified for
capital expenditure on a cash-flow basis budget for this year carried beyond
March 31 would be expended in the next year and future years. Another reason
why: On November 7 -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister now to complete his answer.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. minister has about ten seconds left to complete his answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If they will give me the opportunity, I could answer it in less than that.
A second reason why: On November 7, we took direct action to reduce
expenditures (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the minister.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is good to see all of the government members laughing
hilariously, with 20,000 people on the streets. Twenty thousand on the streets,
and they are having a big laugh in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me make it clear, we are not laughing at public
servants on the street. What we are laughing at is the Leader of the Opposition
with his frivolous statements today in this House, and misleading statements.
That is what we are laughing at, not at public servants on the street!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
I would remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his questions should
have very short
preambles, a minimum of one sentence, and then we should be
having a more rapid exchange across the floor.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I appreciate the Minister of Finance starting to answer the question I
am about to ask now, and maybe we will get the right answer, because there is a
credibility, there is a fiscal deficit, Mr. Speaker, and there is a huge
credibility deficit with this Premier and this government that is growing every
day. Now, which one is right? That is the question, because here is the
circumstance: The Premier again, on January 5, said - he did not say what the
Finance Minister just said about debt servicing. He said: We spend more than a
billion dollars a year to pay the interest on the debt.
Listen to the words. The Finance Minister, in his document, statement six,
page seven, shows the amount will be half that, $502 million!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will tell him who is right. I will give him the third reason he asked the
question - the one before.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: The third reason is, over the last nine years there has
been an average of $105 million per year, revenue improvements, by the time we
get our final entitlements in February. The last five years it averaged $145
million a year. This year it is way lower. That made up the rest of the
difference in the projected budget.
I will answer the question, Mr. Speaker. The true deficit of this Province is
not measured in three figures, like the former Premier of the Province used to
measure.
MR. GRIMES: His words (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: The true measurement, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: They do not want to hear the answer.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The minister has about ten seconds left to finish his answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
He has to understand that when he brings in a budget and boasts about doing
accrual accounting, and he plays with three sets of numbers, number one, the
figure that the Leader of the Opposition is using -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I thank the minister.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the other issue that I would like to ask is
about mutual respect, trust and integrity. Again the Premier, who will not
answer his questions because he has misled the people of the Province, stated to
NAPE: Mutual respect, trust and integrity are the foundation of collective
bargaining.
What we have today is 20,000 people on the streets - all of them laughing at
it - and, when questioned on the integrity of their fiscal numbers, which I am
doing today, by the unions, the Premier and the Minister of Finance went down
and snapped to the media: I don't have time to deal with this nonsense! I am
busy doing a Budget! It is okay for people like Mr. Anstey; they don't have
anything better to do.
Now, how is that for mutual respect, integrity and honesty? Why is we think
the people -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we raise points of order in
Question Period, but we are not going to stand by here and watch the Leader of
the Opposition flagrantly break the rules of this House, and the one he just
broke when he said, purposely, that the leader of the government, in a
purposeful and intentful' way, misled people in this Province.
He knows, or he ought to know, from his fifteen years in this House, that he
cannot impute motives on people, he cannot break the rules of this House, and I
ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to withdraw those statements.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to
belabour this at this time, because I think the Government House Leader knows
full well that he is using the time in Question Period to stop us from having an
opportunity to ask questions.
First, I would point out that it is clearly a breach of the rules of this
House to be making points of order during Question Period. If he has something
to make a point on, he should wait until Question Period is over. That is twice
that he has done it today. He is trying to take this place on his back. The
Leader of the Opposition here never used the word purposeful or intentional at
all.
If he has a point of order, I would remind the Government House Leader, he of
all persons should follow the rules of this House and wait until it is over!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will rule on the point of order immediately after Question Period.
I would also caution all members to show mutual respect for each other,
because that is the only way in which this House can function effectively.
I do believe the floor goes back to the government side. The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a sentence that was taken from a statement,
an address, that I gave to NAPE a couple of years ago. It said: my government
will respect the collective bargaining process. We will negotiate fair
collective agreements that the Province can afford and we will stand by those
agreements.
We made every attempt last night to negotiate an affordable agreement that
the people of the Province could bear and sustain. We made every attempt to have
a settlement last night. Unfortunately, it was not to be. The union did not
accept the settlement, so unfortunately there is a strike. That is not what we
wanted. We do not want these people on the streets. We do not want their
families affected; we do not want their lives affected; we do not want their
communities affected.
With respect to the gentleman, Mr. Anstey, that the Leader of the Opposition
referred to, we called a news conference on the basis that some numbers that
were being presented to the public were actually incorrect. We put the correct
numbers on the record.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We will not allow incorrect numbers to be presented to the people of the
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is: When is he
going to get the message that these people do not trust him because he has not
respected them? He does not think they are worthwhile in what they are doing.
Mr. Speaker, when will the Premier stop his intimidation and bullying tactics?
A couple of weeks ago it was a wage freeze or lay off 2,000 people. Today,
when he promised not to use the Legislature to send people back, he says: If I
use the Legislature to send them back it will be for a lot less than what I
offered them last night. That is what he said. When is he going to stop the
intimidation and bullying, show some real respect that he talked about in that
same speech to the members of NAPE and get back to something sensible in
Newfoundland and Labrador instead of the mess that he has created since November
6, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, the Leader of the Opposition chooses selective statements for his own
benefits. We have a very delicate situation. I repeat, we have over 20,000
public servants on the streets. This is serious business. The nature and the
tone of this particular line of questioning is incredible under the
circumstances.
With regard to legislating, what I did indicate in every interview that I
have done today -
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).
PREMIER WILLIAMS: If the Leader of the Opposition would allow me. You had
your question. Could I be allowed to do the answer, please?
With regard to legislating back, we indicated in every single interview we
did that a last recourse is to legislate back. This government does not want to
legislate back.
MR. REID: You said never, you said you were never legislating back
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Member for Twillingate & Fogo if he could refrain from his loud
commentary and persistent interruption while others are trying to answer a
question.
The hon. the Premier. You have about ten seconds left.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, let me just quote the words of the Leader
of the Opposition when he was in government. As for using the threat of
legislation to win concessions from the unions, Grimes was unrepentant. He said:
Voters had given the government a mandate to do whatever is necessary to
overcome the difficult financial times. That is the action that this person
would take. That is not what we are saying. We will only legislate to protect
the health and the safety -
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you to the Premier.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, on a final supplementary with respect to this issue, a very important
one, where again today, Mr. Speaker, the bullying and intimidating tactics of
the Premier. If he would only show a little bit of respect we might not be in
the unfortunate circumstance we are in today. His Government House Leader in
Hansard -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the Opposition Leader that there is about one minute left in the
allocated time for the Opposition before we move to the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi, or his associate. So he has a very short time to ask a question and
a very short time to give a response.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Opposition House Leader speaking in this Legislature talking about the
Premier said: The Premier gave this commitment to NAPE. We would never use the
force of the Legislature to legislate people back to work. That is the
difference between my leader and you, when he was pointing at me. Right here in
this Legislature, your House Leader saying what you said. What is the difference
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to take his seat.
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time for other questions. We
have said very clearly, we have said it today, that we do not want to use the
Legislature to legislate back agreement. That is exactly what we said.
I will repeat though what I was about to say before the hon. gentleman -
MR. GRIMES: Before who?
PREMIER WILLIAMS: You have had your opportunity to say a few words, so if
you would not mind -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, I ask hon. members to permit others to either ask questions or to
answer questions. We have to show some respect for each other. I know it is a
very intense day, however the floor of the House is for the Premier of the
Province. He has a short time to give a very quick answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have said that it would be a last recourse to use the
Legislature in order to bring an end to this collective agreement. However, let
me make it very clear to yourself and to the people of the Province and to the
members of the union, if it comes to a matter which affects the health and the
safety and the lives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, then I will
legislate them back.
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. We have 20,000 people on the streets today
because this government did not make a fair offer yesterday when the unions -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: When the leadership of NAPE and CUPE walked into the meeting
yesterday they gave the Premier what he wanted, a two-year wage freeze, an
opportunity for the Premier to prove and do what he campaigned for last fall, to
create some prosperity, to raise the revenues in the Province and to make life
better for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Mr. Speaker, why is the Premier not prepared to share that future prosperity
with the workers of this Province whose wages have not kept pace with inflation,
not kept pace with the private sector and not kept pace with public sectors in
other Province?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member to finish his question.
MR. HARRIS: Why is he not prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is saying that we
should share future prosperity, which we don't have yet, which is not in the
bank yet, which we don't have on the books yet, then I can understand why BC
and Ontario nearly went to the ground under NDP governments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, his government is lowballing the future
projections for GDP growth. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the banks have more confidence
in the future of the Province's economy than does the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: He is lowballing. Why does he have no confidence in his own
ability to do what he said he was going to do in the campaign and increase the
number of jobs in this Province, increase the revenues for the public sector and
make sure that the workers of this Province get to share in those benefits?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what an NDP government, a government in
Saskatchewan, did yesterday for the workers in their province. Let me just tell
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Member for Torngat Mountains to tone down his commentary, it is
impossible for others to hear.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Here is what happened with an NDP government in
Saskatchewan yesterday. The NDP government sent layoff notices to 400 full and
part-time civil servants on Wednesday, including 100 in the agriculture
department. Here is the quote from the Finance Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Do you mind if I answer the question?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We have about thirty seconds left in Oral Question Period.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The quote from the NDP finance minister in
Saskatchewan: When faced with the choice of a deficit budget or cutting
programs, there are no easy answers. That is what we are faced with here in this
Province, Mr. Speaker. There are right answers. There are only difficult
decisions. We don't like having to take these decisions. We inherited this
mess from the hon. members opposite and we are doing our best.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
In order to account for the time taken with a point of order, we will permit
one more question by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am more interested, Mr. Speaker, in what is happening in this Province and
a quote from the Premier of this Province who said, in an ad signed by him, that
under a Progressive Conservative government there would be no layoffs in the
public service.
That is the promise that he made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is no wonder we have 20,000 people on the streets, because this Premier has
not been trusted and he made the workers feel betrayed by what he has done in
his Budget.
Can he tell the people of this Province that he is prepared to regain that
trust by making an offer that is fair and reasonable to the public sector
workers?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I can look anyone in this Province in the eye and tell them that
we made an affordable offer last night, that was a fair offer, that dealt with
the concessions, that dealt with every issue, that dealt with the terms, that
put 7 per cent on the table, but we could not afford the $330 million that the
union asked us for. We just did not have the money.
Yesterday, in Saskatchewan, the NDP government gave zero increase to their
public servants!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If the disorder continues in the House, the Chair will have no choice but to
recess the House until such time as order can be restored. I do not want to do
that, but if we have to do that then the Chair will have no other choice. I ask
members again to respect the Chair, to respect each other, so we can continue
with the afternoon session.
I want to comment on the point of order raised by the Government House
Leader. He referenced a comment made by the Leader of the Opposition, a quote
referring to the Premier. He said: He has misled the people of the Province.
In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the
tone, the manner and intention of the member speaking. He takes into account the
person to whom the words were directed, the degree of provocation and, most
importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.
I can tell you, if you go to Beauchesne, you will find a list of
words; however, there has been no codification of words that is found to be
satisfactory in the parliamentary process, because the Speaker has to take into
account the body language, and everything that goes with the comment. I find
that in this particular case the comment, "He has misled the people of the
Province", to be unparliamentary and I ask the hon. Leader of the
Opposition to withdraw the comment.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, I cannot withdraw that comment because that is exactly what
this Premier has done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Again, I am asking the Member for Exploits, the Leader of
the Official Opposition, if he would withdraw the comment that, quote, referring
to the Premier, "He has misled the people of the Province".
The Speaker has ruled it to be unparliamentary in the context of Marleau and
in the context of parliamentary procedure.
I would appeal once again to the hon. member to withdraw the words which the
Chair has ruled to be unparliamentary and which have certainly, in my opinion,
caused disorder in the House.
MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, with no intent to disrespect yourself or
the Legislature, I would be making an absolute liar out of myself if I withdrew
the words that he misled the Province, because he absolutely did and has.
MR. SPEAKER: Colleagues, I must express profound regret. As your Speaker,
I have to resort to naming the Member for Exploits.
One more time I will ask the member, and appeal to the hon. member, to
respect the authority of the Chair and to withdraw that particular comment.
MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I cannot. There is
no disrespect to the Chair, but I cannot withdraw that very truthful comment.
MR. SPEAKER: Roger Grimes, I must name you for disregarding the authority
of the Chair. Pursuant to the authority vested in me under Standing Order 22, I
order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is with pleasure that I table the annual activity reports of the following
agencies of the Department of Finance for the year 2002-2003. These agencies
include: the Newfoundland Government Fund Limited, the Newfoundland and Labrador
Government Sinking Fund, the Newfoundland and Labrador Industrial Development
Corporation, and Hotel Buildings Limited.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table for the House, for the year ended
December 31, 2002, the activity report and the audited financial statements of
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador Pooled Pension Fund, as well as the
activity report for the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan.
The Pooled Pension Fund finance all benefits from those pension plans
covering full-time public servants, teachers, uniformed services personnel and
MHAs. Total investments as of December 31, 2002, amount to $2.1 billion.
The Government Purchase Plan, Mr. Speaker, provides pension coverage for
part-time employees of government and its agencies and full-time employees of
participating employers that are eligible to participate in other government
plans. As of December 31, 2002, that plan had assets totalling $129 million.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice and by leave move that the following members comprise the
Striking Committee: Myself, as the Member for Kilbride; the Member for
Ferryland; the Member for Bonavista South; the Member for Burgeo & La Poile,
and the Member for Bellevue.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
In consultation with the Clerk, I do believe that the Clerk believed that you
asked for leave to do that today, other than giving notice of motion. I ask for
clarification.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is just under Notices of Motion. I
could do it at any time during the day but I chose to do it at this time before
we got into government orders. I said: I give notice and by leave move that the
following members comprise.... I did ask for leave to move it.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to introduce this motion at this
time?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
The hon. the Government House Leader is moving that the following members
comprise the Striking Committee under our Standing Orders: the Member for
Kilbride; the Member for Ferryland; the Member for Bonavista South; the Member
for Burgeo & LaPoile; and the Member for Bellevue.
Are we ready to adopt the motion put forward by the hon. Government House
Leader?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Those against?
The motion is carried.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of
residents of Labrador West. I will read the prayer of the petition to begin
with:
WHEREAS palliative care patients have no priority for getting home on Air
Ambulance; and
WHEREAS stretchers cannot be carried on either of the commercial airlines
travelling to Labrador; and
WHEREAS Air Ambulance is the only option of returning home, it is of utmost
importance to patients and their families to be able to do so; and
WHEREAS Labradorians do not have the option of driving to a loved one in the
hospital and the costs of flying are prohibitive to many;
WHEREFORE we the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to call on
government to change the Air Ambulance policy immediately to allow for
palliative care patients to return to their homes immediately upon being
informed they are ready to go home, so they can spend time surrounded by their
families and friends.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue for people in Labrador. It is a
serious issue because, as the petition states, there is no other way to get
there. It is the only way, via the Air Ambulance. Each and every time that
families are faced with this situation in Labrador we get calls to act on their
behalf, to intervene with the ministers to get the Air Ambulance put on to bring
them back. This is no longer acceptable in today's age.
I have talked to the Minister of Health. I have talked to the Minister of
Transportation and I impressed upon them the need to change this policy so that
people can be treated with respect and dignity that they deserve. This change,
Mr. Speaker, should take place immediately. I know that this is not a budget
area type item. This can be done by the minister just as a matter of a phone
call or a simple change in policy.
Mr. Speaker, people should not have to suffer more greatly than they are
already suffering. People should be allowed to spend their final days with their
families. I can tell you, from my past experience in dealing with situations
like this, is that many times after two or three days of complaining, of calling
that the plane is finally put on, but sadly enough, sometimes and many times,
the patient has only barely made it back to their home before they passed away.
That puts the family under an enormous amount of stress at a time when they do
not need a hassle of trying to get back to their home towns.
So, I would ask the ministers, the Minister of Health and the Minister of
Transportation and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, that they act
on this immediately. Make the necessary change. Don't put the people, who
depend upon that Air Ambulance, under any more pressure than they are under
already. So when a doctor says it is okay for a person to return to their home,
they are able to do so immediately. Bearing the fact, Mr. Speaker, of course -
and we all understand - that the plane is not gone on an emergency run, but that
has not been the case in the past, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave.
MR. COLLINS: I ask the ministers responsible to take a serious look at
this and bring in the necessary change.
I presented petitions on this last week as well, Mr. Speaker. I would like,
after presenting petitions in this House for the last five or six years - and
any member who presented a petition in this House. I do not know if anyone is
getting responses to them, but I would certainly hope in this case, that the
ministers would get back to us on this most important issue.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 1, put forward by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board, to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government. Budget Speech, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
This is an unusual day, Mr. Speaker, because it is unusual that I would be
speaking now to the Budget on the day that a strike has started. Nevertheless,
this is part of the Orders of the Day and I think it is very important, Mr.
Speaker. I am going to be on my feet for a long time, I would appreciate some
quietness here in this Chamber.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans is going to be speaking for a
lengthy time. In fact, unlimited time. She would appreciate some order, and we
ask all hon. members to give her the attention she deserves.
MS THISTLE: That is right.
I am wondering, and I have heard it said in the past - although I did not
count it last year. I understand that the former Opposition Finance critic stood
on his feet for - how many hours?
AN HON. MEMBER: Twelve.
MS THISTLE: Twelve hours.
I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, with the events of the day that
have now started, I think it is very important that this side of the House gives
the true picture of the deficit, because I am sure it is on the minds of
everybody out there today.
I would like to speak to the matter of trust. The PricewaterhouseCoopers
report that was done for the government, and made public on January 5, 2004, has
brought into question a matter of trust. It is interesting that when that
particular document was released, Mr. Speaker, I do not think any of us had any
idea who the author was, or who the spokesperson for that report was. When this
speech was made after your news conference, and the Premier's speech that
night, I was absolutely floored myself, as the Opposition critic for Finance, to
learn that the main author of that speech was Michael Gourley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: People said: Who is Michael Gourley? Michael Gourley had a
close connection to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, a very close
connection. In fact, he left his job as the Chief Executive Officer of the
Ontario Financing Authority November 7, after a little more than fifteen months
into the job.
You are talking about salaries and severances today, which is on the hearts
and the minds of all union members. This Michael Gourley left his job with
$917,699 in salary and buyout after having a connection with the Tory Party of
Ontario. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, he was asked to advise the Tory government
on taxation and economic policy. He was Deputy Finance Minister until 1998. Most
people would think that he comes to this Province with very strong credentials.
Yet, in fact, he was hired by the former Premier of Ontario, Ernie Eves.
Although he had an interesting career - in fact, one was even including a stint
as TV Ontario mascot for Pokaroo. The glaring real reason why I take into
question his credibility was the fact that after the Liberals came to power in
Ontario and the finances were looked at again, this Mr. Michael Gourley made a
huge mistake. He made a mistake of $5 billion. I did not say million, I said $5
billion. What does that say? Can we trust a person who makes a mistake of $5
billion? If we had $5 billion in this Province I doubt if there would be anybody
on the streets out there today in a labour dispute.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province paid $115,000 to have that
report done; $115,000. That did not count or take into consideration the cost of
Mr. Michael Gourley to travel back and forth from Ontario to give us all the
recommendations, and you as your government - that did not take into account. I
guess by the time it was said and done it was more like $135,000. Anyway, no
matter what it was it was too much money for what we got. I think that was the
start, fabrication of the facts that have made the people in this Province very
uneasy about the new government.
When I was first handed this report - and I never read anything inside, I was
just looking at the report. It said: Special Review of the Financial Condition
of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now there was nothing wrong with
that. That is all that should be there. This group had to go and title this.
They titled it: Directions, Choices and Tough Choices. Now, what business was
that of a chartered accountant firm to put a title on this? We wanted to find
out - the original report on this one was due November 28, but we put in a
Freedom of Information request on that. We did not get that report on November
Then you look at political statements made in this report, which has no place
for political statements. The next one made by this group was clearly the
government. Its employees and everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador will have to
focus on dealing with this situation. Now, I have never seen an audited or
so-called external, independent audit making political statements.
The next one that comes to mind is this one on page fifty-nine,
"Deterioration of the Province's budgetary performance during an election
year..." Can you imagine a chartered accountant firm giving that kind of a
statement? They are saying, "Deterioration of the Province's budgetary
performance during an election year, with a common expectation that 2003-04 will
be merely an aberration on the path to fiscal rectitude." Can you imagine a
chartered accountant saying that kind of stuff?
Anyway, this is what happened with this report of January 5. The funny part
about this report is that the Finance Minister, the President of Treasury Board,
in his news conference that morning of January 5 called the whole world together
and said: I have news to share with you. The news he had was that the government
of the day, that they inherited, they said was in debt further than they
thought. Well now, isn't that a funny revelation, when they had in their
Cabinet a former Auditor General, would you believe? She had her report - and I
just grabbed one off the shelf today, when the former Auditor General wrote the
report, March 31, 2001.
I think this new government is leaving the impression that they had no
knowledge of the Province's finances when, in fact, they had the Opposition
Finance critic for years and years and years, and they also had the Auditor
General who had access to every financial document that she needed to have to
pass on to the new government, so the fact that the new government was in the
dark with regard to finances is totally wrong.
I want to talk a little bit about the deficit. In our own budget report from
last year, 2003, we said ourselves, we predicted, that we would probably have a
revenue gain last year, after everything was said and done, of about $93
million. We said last year, in Budget 2003, for example, our current account
revenues for 2002-2003 were $220 million higher than the previous year and we
are forecasting these same revenues to be $96.4 million higher in 2003 than they
were in 2002.
Do you want to know something? We were exactly on the mark. We predicted that
we would have a cash deficit of two hundred and -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Could we have a little more co-operation from the government benches? There
is a little too much noise in the Chamber. It is impossible for me to hear the
hon. member.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As a previous Administration, we predicted that we would have a cash deficit
of $286 million. When, in fact, Mr. Speaker, your own figures, or the government's
figures I should say - the government itself who brought down their Budget a few
days ago - they confirmed to the whole population in Newfoundland and Labrador
that actually the former Administration generated $100 million extra last year.
Instead of having a deficit of $286 million, the figure at the end of the year
was a deficit of $197 million, so the economy of our Province actually performed
$100 million better than we anticipated.
When that report was done by PricewaterhouseCoopers, there was a lot of
fabrication in that report - a lot of fabrication - and the Premier used that
report to give a message on January 5 to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. He used that report to say that we had a deficit, at that particular
time, of $666 million.
The previous Auditor General, and the current one we have today, had always
recommended that we would get around to accrual accounting. I think that is the
confusing part out in the Province today. There is lots of information in the
airwaves talking about cash deficits and accrual accounting. Up until this past
year, we dealt with what we call a cash deficit. I can relate that to our
household. If you have $1,500 a month coming in your household and you spend
$1,700, you have a cash deficit of $200. Now, this is the only way that we
reported our Province's finances in the past, but just about every province in
Canada now have moved to what we call accrual accounting and we have as well.
What that means is that every entity that government is responsible for must be
recorded and, as a result, that means that we move away from cash deficit to
accrual deficit.
Now, it is interesting that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board has always been harping that the former Administration is trying to
confuse the figures. He said, in his third paragraph in the opening of the
Budget, the Introduction, "First, to balance the budget on a cash
basis...".
Now, I thought he was going to stop talking about cash basis and a cash
deficit but no, no, it is convenient. It is very convenient now for the Minister
of Finance and President of Treasury Board to talk about a cash basis. He wants
to balance the Province's cash deficit in the next four years of their mandate
and "...restore sound fiscal management;" because he knows full well
there is no way that he can pay off the accrual deficit, supposing he is here
until the cows come home. He cannot do that. There is no way possible unless we
come into a windfall of mammoth proportions. So, it is convenient now for the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to talk about a cash
deficit.
That is all anyone could expect to pay off in four years. In fact, in our
predictions, the former Administration's Budget of 2003, we talked about - we
had a record over the past four years of generating more revenue than we
predicted and that is the reason why we could deal with a deficit because the
economy was buoyant - it still is - and could handle an overrun. We had a plan
that the $75 million deficit reduction amount for any particular year was only a
target because we have to retain the flexibility to manage the overall fiscal
position for the longer term. Had we been re-elected, we had the same plan to
reduce the cash deficit over the four-year mandate, as does this government we
now have in place.
This is not a super government that we are dealing with. They are not going
to take and eliminate the accrual deficit of this Province. They cannot. There
is no way they can, unless they come into a deal with Ottawa that wants to pay
them $15 billion up front. That is not going to happen. There is no way. So, for
the people out there viewing this afternoon, I want to make it quite clear that
the only figure that the new Finance Minister is talking about is the cash
deficit. He has put the accrual deficit to bed; he does not want to talk about
that one any more because that was only used to his benefit and the benefit of
this new government to shock. It was shock therapy that they put on the people
of this Province on January 5.
The new Premier has destroyed collective bargaining. I thought, he being a
new Premier, on January 5 he had learned his lesson from that infamous speech,
but he has persisted and I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what limits will this government
go to, to prove that there was a bigger deficit than there actually was?
The first order when we came in this House a few days ago, last week, was
Bill 1. That was
an act -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Some members are talking across the floor and that is causing the Member for
Grand Falls-Buchans, I am sure, some discomfort. I would ask for the indulgence
of all members to permit the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans to continue her
speech.
MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly do not want to lose my voice yet, this early into the speech,
because I have many hours to go yet. I certainly do not want to lose my voice
yet.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the new government with the new approach
confirmed in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that our predicted deficit was
exactly as we forecast, but do you know something? That was not good enough for
this new government. They had to paint the ugliest picture imaginable. They had
to get the goods to do it. Now, what did it take? The new government said to
Michael Gourley: I don't like your first report. Go back. You have to make
this deficit look huge. We have important business to do here and you must paint
the deficit as grim as you can, because this is not good enough. In fact, that
matches the former Administration. He said: Okay, new government, I will go back
and see what else I can find. There was only one thing he could find, and that
was the fact that, as a Province, we have now become the lender for the student
loan program. In previous years it was held by the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce.
We were under no obligation, Mr. Speaker, absolutely no obligation, to take
into our books that student loan portfolio for the end of March. It was all a
plan, and it was planned for a few months, that the new government wanted hard
evidence to paint a grim picture to dose out tough medicine. They said: Go back,
Michael Gourley, and see what you can find. He said: Okay, the only thing there
that we can possibly deal with is the student loan portfolio. We know that it
does not have to come due by the end of March, but if we make it come due we can
inflate that deficit and it will make it look like the government has done a
rotten job in the past. We will be able to inflate the deficit and we will go
out and freeze the wages. We will do what we have to do because we are going to
paint the black picture.
Not only that, there was one other thing that did not even need to be
addressed in this current year. All provinces in Canada are moving to accrual
accounting. With that comes the fact that we must take into account that if
there is an employee benefit which has to be paid out when an employee retires,
we have to make accommodation on our books and actually accrue the cost of that
when it happens. We did not need to do that in this fiscal year. There was no
requirement. In fact, it does not even need to happen until 2005. But, do you
know something, the former Administration that I was a part of, the government,
we had an actuarial group start that process where we could identify how many
employees in our system would be retiring, in what years, and what would it take
to accrue for that cost when it came due.
Can you imagine? That is an onerous task when you have roughly 30,000
employees. You have to look at their ages; you have to look at their employment
years; their prospects for continued employment with government; when they would
retire; what benefits would be due to them, and what it will cost government.
You cannot snap your fingers and ask for that information in a matter of a month
or two. Well, this new government were so desperate for that information to
paint the black picture they made the employees work around the clock to get the
information so they could add that in, and Michael Gourley could put that in his
book and pad the deficit a bit more.
So, it was only an assumption. It was not the actual cost that is going to be
accrued to government. It was just a guesstimate really, their best guesstimate,
on what it will cost government when those people retire. In other words, if I
come to work for government today - and it is expected that the normal time you
will work for government would probably be thirty years, just say a round figure
like thirty years. So government must look ahead thirty years and what it will
cost for government to pay me my severance pay, pay me my vacation, pay me my
health benefits when I retire. Okay, government has to accrue that and put it on
their books now as a cost to government, even though I am not going to retire
for thirty years time. This is what they summoned the officials and actuarial
staff to run out and do, to put in their book for January 5. Can you imagine
that? They still do not know the exact number. It is only a guesstimate, but
they were desperate, Mr. Speaker, to paint an ugly picture of the Province's
finances.
This is what they did. Our figures were spot on, absolutely spot on, because
the same people who work in Treasury Board and the Department of Finance, they
still work there today. Economists all across the country have applauded the
staff in the Department of Finance, and also the staff in Treasury Board. They
have had the best record over the years of predicting GDP, predicting
employment, predicting every facet of our fiscal performance. Our staff have
been the best, and they are there today.
What was kind of demeaning was the fact that the new government went out and
paid PricewaterhouseCoopers for this so-called external independent audit. Do
you know there was nothing external, except that they were from Ontario. There
was nothing independent because every figure that they plastered in this book
came out of our own government records. They did not go out and do an
independent search of anything at random. Whatever they wanted they went to the
Department of Finance and they went to Treasury Board and said: Will you get me
those figures, please?
Every graph that you see in it, every statement that you see in it, there was
no independence in it at all except their political statements. Everything else
in it actually came from government's own records. Yet, there was a motive
behind initiating this outside report. If the government, the new government of
the day, had gone with our own records they would not be able to paint a
different picture than what was on our own records. They had to get a firm from
Ontario, at a cost to the taxpayers between $150,000 and $130,000, and they had
to instruct this firm to put on this report exactly what the new government
wanted. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the only two items that were different from
our own records was the student loan portfolio - that we did not need to put on
right now in this year - and we did not need to put the accrued employee
benefits on until 2005.
Mr. Speaker, that was not good enough. This government - this new approach
had to pad the books, inflate the deficit, and fabricate a story so when they
went on television on January 5 the new Premier, the new Finance Minister,
thought they had the information and the wherewithal to just go ahead and do as
they wished because they had a padded report, a fabricated report, that they
thought the whole world would believe.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that everybody in this Province - and it is a funny
thing about it, name recognition - if you asked, I think, anybody, no matter
where they came from within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, they
would know today who Michael Gourley is. I would say that everybody in this
Province knows who Michael Gourley is. The man who came at the request of this
government and fabricated a financial document that is now being used to dole
out tough medicine that, in many instances, is not necessary.
Mr. Speaker, a while ago, just over a week ago, we were presented with Bill
1. There was an urgency in the Government House Leader's voice when he brought
that bill to the floor of the House, Bill 1. He was on a mission to the new
Premier. When the Government House Leader came in and the Minister of Education
stood and introduced Bill 1,
An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance
Act, that was his first task as Government House Leader and also as Minister of
Education. He was under considerable pressure by the new Premier, that he must
past the first test. The Government House Leader's first test was to make sure
he gets Bill 1 done before the end of March, because the stakes were high on
Bill 1.
We had an Environment Minister who was going to be taken to task, Mr.
Speaker. He had gotten up in the House a couple of days previous and he was
saying how he was the cardboard man for the Confederation Building. Mr.
Cardboard Man, the Environment Minister. The funny part about this, they are
talking about spending money and saving money. This Budget, the new one that
they presented the other day, that was printed before they brought Bill 1 to the
House. Now, if the Government House Leader was not cleaver enough to get Bill 1
passed, the first job for the Environment and Conservation Minister was that he
was going to have to go and shred all these Budget documents that were already
printed. That would have been his first task, to shred these documents, so you
can understand how the Government House Leader was under considerable pressure
to make sure that Bill 1 got passed.
During the course of debate on Bill 1, it was very interesting, Mr. Speaker.
No matter what was said to and fro, there was not one member from the government
side that ever denied the allegation that many of us had put forward. Everyone
pretty well from this side of the House, who stood on their feet, said that we
are here today dealing with this legislation unnecessarily. There is an
artificial date of March 31, 2004, primarily to get the new government out of a
jam; primarily to get the new government out of a jam. I cannot imagine -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Would you please tone it down a little so the Speaker can hear the hon.
member.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot imagine how a new government, their first bill to the House, wanting
to create just a wonderful impression, you know, a stellar impression that they
are squeaky clean, a stellar impression that the new government is squeaky clean
and wanting to do good business on their first bill, and they brought to the
House Bill 1. The Minister of Education stood in his place and he was so proud.
He was talking and espousing about the benefits that this was going to bring on
the students of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, my goodness, any student
watching television that day had the distinct impression that the new government
were going to write off all their loans that they had on the books, and they
were talking about everyone who stood in their place on the government side. I
have them here. I have the Hansard of when all the government members jumped to
their feet and they all talked about the good bill, the Student Loan Act, and
how much it was going to do for the students of this Province. Do you know, Mr.
Speaker, this was called the Student Loan Act and they never had the courtesy or
the foresight or the commitment to the students of this Province to include the
students on the Student Loan Corporation that was designed just for this bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Thank you.
I know you are have a difficult task, Mr. Speaker, to keep your government
members in line. I do not know why they are so -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I caution the member that it is the government members, not the Speaker's
government members.
MS THISTLE: Well, I certainly must correct that. I withdraw that. I am
definitely out of order to say that.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, at all times, has to be impartial.
MS THISTLE: Yes, I agree, and I have great respect for the Speaker who is
neutral in every regard, and very objective. He is an excellent Speaker and he
has demonstrated that so far in his short time in the Chair. Congratulations, by
the way. I do not think I have said this formally. I was delighted to see that
you were elected Speaker, and already I can confirm that you are going to do a
great job for this House.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this Bill 1 was designed for students, and
the reason why it was designed for students was that - I do not know why big
banks are getting out of the loan business. When you think about it, big banks
lose money in lots of ways other than dealing with student loans. They were paid
well in fees and service charges by this government, but they did not want the
nuisance of student loans. They advised myself, when I was the former Minister
of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. We bandied back and forth on
what we were going to do about it. We did the Request for Proposals. We did not
get the right ones. Finally, I think it was in July or August of 2003, we came
across an opportunity to integrate our student loan system with the federal loan
system. Mr. Speaker, that was the right way, the only way, to go. We did not
have any choice in the matter.
The correspondence that I wrote to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and
they wrote back to me was that we had an option. We did not have to take this
into our books, because there was quite a bit of administration involved, and
they relayed correspondence to me, which I have on file, that we had an option
or you have an option, Mr. Speaker, this government has an option - the new
government. They could have written the Bank of Commerce. It was plainly stated
that they could have decided to assume that portfolio at any date. They did not
have to take it by March 31, 2004. It makes zero difference to the students.
They have the loans. It is not going anywhere. So, it was government's choice
to include it for the fiscal year 2003-2004 with only one motive in mind, and
that was to fabricate the deficit by another $220 million.
The only other missing link was, try to pad the deficit again. That was not
good enough. They wanted more evidence, so they had the actuarial people working
night and day to come up with a figure that would be reasonable, that they could
say was going to be the accrued employee benefits when they retired. These
people were working around the clock, trying to figure out a figure that would
stand up under scrutiny, that it was yet factual. I think they came up with a
figure of around $93 million, that they would be able to stand up and say: Yes,
this is what it is going to cost the government when these employees retire.
Everything else checked out. Our figures were exactly like what the Finance
Department had given us in the previous budget. They came up with two figures
that had no relevance to last year's budget, but they wanted to include them
so they would be able to get on with what they wanted to do.
I do not know how many in the Province know that. A good many people know
that. A good many people, I am sure, are thinking today: Do they have to take
the medicine that was dished out two days ago? Is there anything else this
government could have done? Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of choices as
to what this government could have done.
It is interesting when people talk about unfunded pension liability. I think
it is timely and important that I should let this House know about unfunded
pension liability. It has been of interest to me. There was no talk of a pension
fund for the employees of our government prior to 1967, Mr. Speaker. The
Smallwood era did not provide pension contributions for public servants; nor did
public servants pay for any benefits. One hundred per cent of the benefits was
paid by government. In 1967, employers started to contribute to a pension fund,
and it went into general revenue.
Now, there are many governments that have dealt with employees' pensions
and there was only one, that I can recall, that made a start to paying back
unfunded pension liability.
I think, from the historical review that I have done, in 1967 contributions
for public servants were first started. It went into a general revenue at that
particular time and it was spent for all of the things that we have grown
accustomed to, and that would be roads and hospitals, the obvious, and schools
and so on. In fact, in 1972, when the Frank Moores government was elected it was
still spent in the very same fashion.
In 1979 Brian Peckford was elected and I think he was the first Premier to
acknowledge that something should be done. So at that particular time he decided
to stop spending it and put it into a special fund. No, I am wrong. He just
decided to stop spending it. He didn't do anything about it.
It was Clyde Wells, who was elected in 1989, to actually get an actuarial
study done to see what was owed to the public servants. We didn't even know at
that point, in 1989, although contributions had been made from 1967 onwards,
what was actually owed to public servants in this Province. The contributions
were made and they were spent for general upkeep and capital projects, building
schools, hospitals, doing roads, water and sewer and so on. It was Clyde Wells,
at that time, who decided: You know, we have to find out how much is owed to the
public servants of this Province. That was actually done by Clyde Wells.
Brian Tobin was the first Premier who actually started to pay back into the
unfunded pension plan for the public servants. I was a member of Cabinet at that
particular time and I remember sitting around the Cabinet Table and Brian Tobin
said: We have to do something about the unfunded pension liability. We have to
make a start. It is going to take us years to actually pay off the unfunded
pension liability. He was the first Premier who actually made a start to do that
and that was in 1997 and 1998. Every year since there has been a contribution to
the unfunded pension liability. That has been done.
Mr. Speaker, when you are talking about accrual deficits and cash deficits,
the unfunded pension liability always comes into the matter. There was, and
there is, a plan in place of actually making all pension plans whole. Through
the contributions, extra contributions, by government - there have been matching
contributions for a great number of years, but since Brian Tobin has made a
start and made a commitment to pay back unfunded pension liability there have
been extra payments go towards unfunded liability for pensions for public
servants in this Province. There is a plan in place that in x number of years,
depending on the plan, it will be fully funded for pensioners in this Province.
Everyone knows, who works for government - or even works for private industry
or private business - that a pension is a sacred thing, and all of us look
forward to a pension to enjoy our senior years when the time comes. When it was
said by the new Premier of our Province that he was going to actually claw back
the indexing for pensioners that was gained in the last contract, I think that
put every senior in the Province on alert. Many people felt threatened when that
statement was made by our new Premier. I am glad today that I heard in the media
that our new Premier has decided to take that issue off the table. I, for one,
would say that is an issue that is entirely untouchable. There is no way that
you should even consider, contemplate, or even give it any slightest of a
thought to taking back anything from pensioners that they already have and they
have already worked for so hard in this Province. I think that would be a great
injustice. We will have to find money some other way, but I would never, never,
never stand in this House, or outside, and say and agree that we should take
money from seniors, from pensioners. A lot of those pensioners have a smaller
pension because some of them were working at a time when there was only one side
of the contribution, that was made entirely by government. Some of them are on a
very small pension, so to even suggest or even consider that we would claw back
indexing for seniors, that is just totally off limits.
I was glad to hear today that the Premier has reconsidered that statement
that he has made and that matter is off the table, because it never should have
been on the table. It never even should have been in the public airwaves. It
caused a lot of anguish for the pensioners who are out there. In fact, I had
received telephone calls myself to attend meetings, and maybe those meetings
will not be necessary now. I am glad that matter is settled, because when you
are retired you should be able to enjoy those golden years without having to
deal with the stress of having to lose a benefit for which you have worked so
hard. Heaven knows, with the new fee structure that was announced in the Budget
just a couple of days ago, seniors in particular are going to have a lot to deal
with just doing the ordinary things that they have to pay for every day.
I want to talk about some of these fees that will affect seniors. While we
were a part of government, or the government, we brought in a heat subsidy for
seniors in our Province. It was $100, and over 20,000 seniors were able to avail
of that, and it meant a lot. In fact, I know that we have had what some people
would call a mild winter this winter, and fuel prices for home heating went down
a little bit, but, you know, when we brought in that subsidy of $100, fuel
prices at that time were thirty-seven cents a litre. Now, last year fuel prices
were fifty-five cents a litre for home heating, and this year, February 15, it
was fifty-one cents a litre.
Now, the government can stand on their feet and they can say that the price
of home heating oil has gone down not quite four cents a litre, but do you know
something? That might justify why that are not going to provide a fuel subsidy
this year, in their minds, but you have to look around and see what has gone up
since last year. We were paying the fuel subsidy when home heating fuel was
thirty cents a litre. This year it is fifty-one cents a litre and, because last
year it was fifty-five cents a litre, this new government are not going to pay a
fuel subsidy because they can justify that it went down four cents a litre since
last year; but, let me tell you, it went up fourteen cents a litre from the
first time we started to pay it, and we paid it every year.
Okay, they can make their justification that they do not have to pay a fuel
subsidy, and that cost the Province $2 million a year, and it helped over 20,000
low income earners. People have been calling me from around the Province and
saying: What is the government going to do about the fuel subsidy?
Well, I asked the government twice and their answer was that they are not
going to do anything because the prices on home heating fuel from February 15,
2003, to that particular date, February 15, 2004, had dropped by almost four
cents a litre.
I will state again that the previous government, of which I was a part, gave
a fuel subsidy when the home heating fuel was thirty-seven cents a litre. Now,
you can justify that four cents any way you want, but the seniors of this
Province, and low income earners, their heat might have gone down by four cents
but if they are going to drive a car in this Province then they have to go and
pay a difference of $40. Can you imagine? If they are going to get their car
licenced, it is going up from $140 to $180, and they are not going to have their
$100 fuel subsidy rebate that they would have gotten from the previous
government.
If they want to spend the day in the park, unserviced camping has gone up
from $9 to $10. Now, everybody is trying to promote participaction, making sure
that we are in better health, so that we do not become a burden on the health
care system of this Province. Can you imagine that the new government, the
new-approach government, said, now, if you want to go cross-country skiing per
season, we are going to increase that from $16 to $20.
Many people in our Province do a lot of hunting and fishing. Now, you might
think that I am blowing my own horn, but when I was a backbencher in the
previous government I championed the cause that came to the Legislature to allow
disabled hunting in this Province. A person who came to me - one of the people
who came to me - is now deceased. A man by the name of Garland Stuckless from
Grand Falls-Windsor helped me out on that a great deal, and it came at the
insistence of a Mr. Rogers, Russell Rogers, from Grand Falls-Windsor, who first
came to me when I was campaigning in 1996, and said he had been everywhere in
the previous ten to fifteen years. He was legally blind and he wanted to go
moose hunting. I remember saying to him: Russell, you know, you are asking for a
hard thing to be done, but if there is any way to do it, I will try to get it
done.
I took on that project when I was in the back benches. I went to see a lot of
people and convinced my Cabinet colleagues and convinced this House of Assembly
that yes, government should do that. We should allow disabled persons to hunt in
this Province. There is no reason why they should not have the same benefit as
anyone else being able to hunt. I can tell you, that was a happy day for me in
1997. I was a backbencher at that time. When we stood in the House and
legislation was introduced, it was an historical day that I will always recall.
Mr. Russell Rogers was here and the tears started to roll down over his eyes.
Garland Stuckless, who was working with the disabled community in Grand
Falls-Windsor, the Exploits Disability Association, had put in so much work with
me on that matter and, of course, the Department of Forestry and Agrifoods where
that would come under their jurisdiction. The officials in that department had
worked so hard, and the Department of Justice. It took a lot of departments
working together to make that happen, but it was one of the highlights, I guess,
in my young political career that meant a lot to the disabled community.
Now, in your Budget of two days ago, anyone that wants to apply for a big
game moose or caribou licence, that is going from $40 to $52. Now, for a
disabled person, you are already on a pension of some kind of subsistence. You
are not able to go out and work, in most cases. Most disabled people, a lot of
them are employed today and a lot are not, but still you would probably have
more expenses than the ordinary person who is physically able to go and shoot a
moose or a caribou on their own. This new government has now increased that
moose and caribou licence by $12. Now, $12 you say, $12 is not much, but $12 is
a lot. Number one, they are not going to get their heat subsidy, their fuel
subsidy, of $100 that they were expecting to get. They have to go and pay an
extra $12 to get their moose licence, and they have to pay an extra $40 to get
their car or their truck licenced to put on the highway. All of these things add
up. That is not to mention how insurance has gone through the roof, insurance on
their vehicle.
This government said that they had a commitment that they would deal with
insurance within the first 100 days of being elected. Now, I have not seen
anything come forward in their insurance plan that would give any reduction to
the consumers in this Province, Mr. Speaker. When I think about it, all of these
things are adding up that the people of this Province have to pay, particularly
seniors who are on a fixed income and a very low income.
People may think that these small fee increases will not be our hurting
people, but they will. No matter what you want to do that requires government
involvement, you are going to have to pay extra this year. All of those extra
things add up to be just about $26 million.
When you are living in rural Newfoundland health care is so very important.
If I am living in Buchans Junction and I have to get an ambulance - last year if
I wanted to get that ambulance it was $75. This year if I get sick and I want to
be moved from Millertown or Buchans Junction, Buchans or Badger, that trip is
$115. Now if I need to take a medical escort, which will be determined by the
doctor, that goes from $25 to $50. That is double. That is going from $25 to
$50. My goodness, that is double. To bring in a charge like that is frightening.
Are you trying to, as a new government, absolutely drive the people out of rural
Newfoundland? They are going to be so afraid that they are going to need an
ambulance and it is going to be so costly - number one, people who are out in
rural Newfoundland, it is a matter of fact that they always take things for
granted. They can always go and get a moose licence and get their moose for the
winter. Now you are increasing that by $12.
You talk about this now, if you want to get a salmon license - living in
Grand Falls-Windsor we have one of the best salmon rivers in all of North
America, the Exploits River. If you going to get a salmon licence, my goodness,
you are increasing it from $17 to $22. If you want to take your family, it is
going from $27 to $35. These are big increases and I do not know if the people
of this Province have access to this list of fees but there are over 150 -
actual fifty increases here. Very, very expensive.
I am going to say that there is a lot of concern out there today on what this
new government is trying to push forward. The first thing they did was try to
push through the Student Loan Act. We, as a former administration, made the
biggest overall, I guess, in the history of the Province in student loans. That
was in August, 2002.
Mr. Speaker, the very first thing that this government did when they were
elected, they demolished Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. They drove
a second nail in the coffin this week for young people in our Province. They
said we are having 4,000 - they are calling it attrition. They are going to lay
off 4,000 people. Workforce adjustment, I think, is the new name for laying off
4,000 people. They abolished the Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education
department, and this week they decided they would lay off 4,000 public servants.
They put out in their budget - I could not believe it when I saw it for the
first time, and I have to find it. Everything is blue. I am almost dazzled by
the color blue because I am not used to looking at that color. I know I will get
used to looking at it for the next two or three months. Anyway, they put out
this booklet called Economy 2004 . I would say to our viewing audience out
there today, pick up this book because the first page is the Liberal book and
the second page is the Tory book. If I were the new government I would not even
publish this because the only good news you brought forward in your Budget was
the base that you had to work on, all the good work that the Liberals did. My
goodness! You have to see the comparison. I say to the viewing audience, pick up
this book: Economy 2004 .
Under the Liberal reign employment increased by 1.8 per cent to 217,000. Do
you know what was said about that employment? Since 1996 all employment growth
has consisted of full year employment which has grown by 26 per cent. Full year
employment now represents 76 per cent of total employment in the Province. Full
year employment now represents 76 per cent of total employment in the Province
compared to 70 per cent in 1996 when we took over the government under Brian
Tobin. Now, what did the Tories say is going to happen this year in employment?
It is almost as if you guys got the funeral parlour mentality. It is almost
like you are pulling down a blind at a funeral.
This is what the Tories said: Employment is expected to grow by 0.9 per cent.
Sure, that is not even 1 per cent. Now, this is what else you said. We said. We
said. We did. We did not say it, we did it. Housing starts reached their highest
level since 1991; 2,692 units, for an increase of over 11 per cent.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: Hold on now, I have to look at the Tory page. Housing starts
are expected to decline to about 2,600 units this year with demand for new homes
down somewhat from the previous year. My glory, what -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: Okay. Then it says: Population grew for the first time in
more than a decade, reflecting both positive net migration and natural
population growth. In fact, under our reign we eliminated out-migration. Nobody
remembers 1992 any better than myself, or anybody. I suppose anybody who came
from a coastal community would remember 1992, and I remember it well. This is
what the Tories are saying for population. This is what they are saying. My God,
I do not know who wrote your book. I tell you, whoever wrote your book must be
the same person who wrote the Premier's speech for January 5, and I thought
that person was fired like three months ago.
Anyway, this is what that person said - this is what the Tories are saying:
Modest population declines are expected. So, you knew when you wrote this book
that you were going to lay off 4,000 people. My glory, I mean you are predicting
it in your own economic forecasting manual for the Province. Modest population
declines are expected. I do not know, if you are trying to sell yourself to the
people of this Province as a new alternative to economic prosperity, I can tell
you what, get with the program. Get with the program and put something in it
that is exciting and is really going to happen to get the people enthusiastic
because what you are doing is telling everybody to bar up their houses and
leave. That is what you are telling people to do: Bar up your house and leave.
This week, I phoned a department. I wanted to go to a department - I will not
mention that department - to see one of the officials on a matter, and I was
informed that no, you cannot have a meeting this afternoon because we are having
a retirement party for three people who are unexpectedly leaving. An unexpected
retirement, it is awful. This week and last week and the week before, I have
seen people put all of their work possessions in a cardboard box and exit the
Confederation Building. I tell you, that was a sad sight, when we as a Liberal
government had eliminated out-migration, had built a buoyant economy in this
Province, that the rest of Canada were applauding us for, and the first thing
this new government did when they got into power was shut the curtain on our
young people, pull down the shades. They said they had no time for them, in a
department by themselves, they had no business being apart of the new student
loan act, and they said we are not interested in your future. As those
government jobs are eliminated through retirement, do not apply for them. Do not
apply for them because we are not going to fill them. You get your education and
you get out of here as quick as you can get because we already said, as a new
government, in our economy book, the population is going to decline and we do
not want our figures to be wrong. That is what we said.
This is the new government with the new approach, where the Premier is
totally responsible for the new Department of Business. The new Department of
Business could not be handled by anybody else in this Province or anybody else
in the government, only the Premier. Only the Premier can handle the new
Department of Business.
Now, it is not good enough for the Premier to have an office upstairs on the
eighth floor; he wants one in Ottawa. He might want to check in and have a cup
of coffee or something when he is in Ottawa, so he said, I have to do that, and
he said to his Finance Minister: Now, Mr. Finance Minister, you make sure that
you put $350,000 aside for me to operate my Ottawa office.
The Premier has to have his Ottawa office. I did not see anything - there was
nothing in that Budget on economic development, not a thing. A kindergarten
child could have written what was in that book on economic development, but he
had to have his Ottawa office, at $350,000, to stick one of their political
patronages in the desk up there.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: That is not all. It is only 3:39 yet.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: Yes, I know where you can get a bit of office furniture. I
know well where you can get a bit of office furniture.
Anyway, he has to have a business office here in Newfoundland and Labrador,
and do you know what? Guess how much the business office for the Premier of the
Province is going to be.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: No, it is not going to be $50,000. It is not even going to be
$200,000. It is not even going to be $500,000. Guess what it is going to be? Can
you imagine, the Premier of this Province, with all the support that he has from
every department of government, he needs $1 million for his new business office.
One million dollars. He is going to pay his executive and support services,
whoever they are, $275,000. Two hundred and seventy-five thousand. Now, this is
the important thing that people should remember. Anyone who is watching out
there should remember what I am going to say next. This is the important part.
Listen keenly. It is for the members of the government. They should listen too.
There is a heading under the business office of the Premier and it is called
Business Attraction, mind you. What does business attraction mean to the men and
women who are out on the picket line today? What does business attraction mean
to the people who are making $6 a hour? What does business attraction mean to
seasonal people in this Province? Who does business attraction mean to everybody
who is out there today trying to struggle for a living? Do you know what
business attraction means, and its $725,000? Business attraction is a travel
budget for the Premier, and that is not his only travel budget.
Let's go over it here now. You see, the Premier is not only going to be the
business manager for the Province. He is also going to be the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. He is going to wear several hats, this new Premier.
Under Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Speaker, there is a heading called
Transportation and Communications. For anyone who has never seen this book in
their life before, called the Estimates, you have to get used to it. They say
the devil is in the details.
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): On a point of order, the hon. the Government
House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly I enjoy listening to the member's response in her unlimited time,
and look forward to her taking her unlimited time, whatever that may mean, but I
do have to ask her this question, and I want to raise this point: While she is
talking about travel budgets, or the Premier's travel budget, could she tell
us about when they were in government, and their travel budgets? Could she talk
about the $40,000 trips around the world, with spouses?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Could she talk about her own travel budget, and may she
also point out that the travel budgets of ministers have now gone from nineteen
to thirteen, have bowed down; but, even more than that, two departments, for
example, what used to be the two departments, had $190,000 worth of travel. Now
there are two departments into one and there is $114. So, when you are
elaborating on travel, tell us about all the trips you had yourself when you
were in government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Well, do you know something? I was not going to respond to
the Government House Leader, but this is an ideal opportunity for me to respond
to the House Leader. Under the former Administration, it was always the rule
that you were able to take your spouse on two trips outside the Province every
year.
AN HON. MEMBER: That did not mean Australia.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, there was a delegation -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, can I have some peace and quiet?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the former Administration, of which I was a
part, had decided to inprove our relationship with business, government and
labour, and I think you could learn a lesson - the new government today - from
that. We had a good relationship with business, government and labour, and it
was decided by the Chamber of Commerce and union leaders and business leaders
and government that we would look at a model that is working successfully in
Ireland.
Mr. Speaker, I was in Cabinet for five years and the only two trips I took
with my spouse were $4,000 each, in five years. It was at the insistence of
business, government and labour. I can stand on my feet and say to the world
today that I did not abuse my time in the Cabinet. That is the truth of the
matter as I stand here. But what I am saying today is that there is some
camouflaging being done here.
We have the Premier of our Province who is now the Intergovernmental Affairs
Minister, who has a travel budget of $50,000, and he is the minster of business.
Being the minister of business he has a travel budget of $725,000. Seven-hundred
and twenty-five thousand dollars plus the one for Intergovernmental Affairs,
another $50,000. That is $775,000. Can you imagine? The Premier of our Province.
Now, I am not the type of individual who makes personal attacks but I wanted -
and that is not a personal attack because that is here in black and white.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: That is here in black and white. Black and white.
Now, the only thing that I saw -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask that the member be heard.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting, the only thing that was shown in this Budget, the brand
new Budget for the brand new government, the only thing that was there in
economic development was the appointment or setting up of what they call a Rural
Secretariat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: All this is, is a big layer of administration and it is going
to cost the taxpayers of this Province $1,700,000. I wonder, what were the
efforts of this new government in finding funding from the federal government to
keep the economic zone boards open? I wonder what were their efforts, and did
they have any success? Because when I was out to my district two weeks ago five
people got their layoff slips. Five people got their layoff slips. I heard about
the new relationship that our Premier has with Ottawa but I wonder was it - I
guess it has not come into play yet because five people in my district alone
ended up with their lay off slips.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)
MS THISTLE: Economic Zone Board 12.
One of those people - or several of them, they are all specialists. One was a
geologist, IT specialist, an agriculture specialist. We have been working hard
in my district in developing the blueberry farming.
MR. MANNING: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: That is what the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's
knows about it. It is co-shared between the Province of Newfoundland and
Cabinet so you can answer intelligently.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about rural Newfoundland and economic
development. I am afraid what this government has done in the past two days is
going to cut the guts out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I say that quite
sincerely.
I sat back and listened to Open Line the other night. Mr. Speaker, a member
of the former Progressive Conservative government in this Province -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask that the member be heard.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I listened to a former Progressive Conservative Cabinet minister, the
Minister of Fisheries, phoning into Open Line and he, himself, had no good words
to say about this recent Budget by the new government. He believes, and he
stated -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: Mr. Jim Morgan.
He believes and he stated: out-migration will start again with this Budget.
He said that this new government gives no hope to our young people. He said
there was no investment for new economic development. He was critical, very
critical, of the new Rural Secretariat. He said on the public airways, that is
just a place for the Deputy Minister, Mr. Doug House. He said those words, they
are not mine. He said the very important thing that was missing from this Budget
- you know it is not very often, party politics aside, when somebody makes a
point and is genuine, I will agree to it. It does not make any difference what
party or what stripe they are. He said the very important thing that is lacking
from this Budget, there is nothing in the Budget that talks about increasing
revenue. Not one iota! He said that this Budget is going to hurt rural
Newfoundland and Labrador. He said this Budget is going to hurt our economy. He
also said - now I thought there was some kind of an alliance between former
members of a particular party, but he said: the new Premier has to realize that
it is time for him to get out and do his job, and his job is to promote
Newfoundland and Labrador and develop the relationship that he says he has with
Ottawa.
Not only that, Nova Scotia had a token $30 million given to them in the
latest federal budget. There was also a call that same night on Open Line - I am
sorry if I have to look and see who is sitting across the House but I am not
familiar with all the new members. There was a call that came in a couple of
nights ago for the member - I do not think I can say it because he is not here.
I will not say it. Can I say it? I do not think I can say it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS THISTLE: Okay, I will not say who he is.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: I will not say who he is, but there was a call for a certain
member of the House to cross the floor because he had betrayed his people.
Anyway, I will not say who that person was.
There was also a person on the Open Line that particular night, a public
servant, who said she had voted Tory in the past election. She actually cried on
the telephone because she was about to lose her job. She said she had a
commitment from the new Premier that there would be no layoffs in the public
service. She felt betrayed, that she had been led down the garden path. She was
trying to make a life for her and her children and now she was about to lose her
job. I do not know how many people in the Province feel this way, but from the
20,000 who are out on the streets this morning I would say there are a good many
people who feel that way.
The new government talks about 4,000 people not being replaced through
attrition. Now, it is all right if you can get up and talk about 4,000 people
and not feel for 4,000 people. If you are cold and cold-hearted and have no
compassion for people and you can stand on your feet in the House of Assembly
and say, well, 4,000 people are going to be part of the new government's
downsizing through attrition, which means that when they retire there will be no
one step into their shoes, they won't be replaced - 4,000 people. Certainly
goodness, this new government is not so cold that they cannot put a face on
4,000 people. Everyone who is being displaced has a family, and for everyone
that is displaced that is probably a mother and a father who have two children.
For every job that is here in the public service in Newfoundland and Labrador,
if you take 4,000 jobs our of our system you can multiple that by almost three
other jobs. The math is simple. You have at least 10,000 people who are going to
be taken out of the economy of this Province.
Every little mom-and-pop store that is out there in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, they are depending on a job, a permanent job, to come and do business
with that establishment.
We saw an economy over the past five years whereby you could hardly find
materials to build a new house in Grand Falls-Windsor. Now, I have to say that
the bigger part of my district, Grand Falls-Windsor, has a pretty buoyant
economy and things are going quite well, but I have a rural part to my district,
I have Badger, I have Buchans Junction, I have Millertown and I have Buchans, so
I know what two sides of the equation are like.
We have had a record number of housing starts in Grand Falls-Windsor over the
past five years. It has been so busy that people were hung up waiting on lumber
and materials to build a house. While it might be frustrating while you are
building a house, I thought to myself: What a wonderful complaint!
Here in St. John's the same thing is happening, and Paradise, and anywhere
on the East Coast. There has been a mushroom effect. There has been a lot of
construction. A lot of it is due to offshore oil business. There has been a
natural gravitation to the Avalon Peninsula by people from rural Newfoundland
who are moving in for medical services, for education and so on. I think what
you have done in this Budget, you are going to increase that gravitation to the
Avalon Peninsula. You are going to do that. Whether it was intentional or
coincidental, I do not know, but inflicting fees on people in rural Newfoundland
and Labrador on a sacred thing like a moose licence, a trout licence or a salmon
licence, an ambulance fee, a driver's licence, and also cutting the guts out
of health care, cutting the guts out of education, cutting the guts out of human
resources and employment - 476 teaching positions going over the next two years.
Teachers, that is a high-paying job in anyone's community, and they are able
to spend that money and contribute to our economy. Can you imagine that, no new
school construction?
I was looking at Budget 2001 and it was education highlights, Investing in
Our Youth, Investing in Our Future. You decided, as a new government, not to
invest in our young people and not to invest in our future. At that particular
time, since 1998-1999, $160 million has been invested in new school construction
and renovations, the largest investment in education since Confederation, and
that budget was an education budget, 2001. That was when I was appointed as the
Minister of Labour, at that time. I looked back and I saw it myself. There was a
school built that year in my district, in Buchans, and it cost $3 million. Some
would say: Why would you put a $3 million school in Buchans? A lot of people
would say that. The mine has been closed since 1984 and you are still providing
services to the people in Buchans. As a government, you want to invest $3
million in the school in Buchans where you have a declining population and there
is no real employment. Now, that is the difference in the thinking of the
Liberal government.
The Liberal government, which I was so proud to be a part of, had great
compassion for the people of this Province. At the time that school was built,
we had 116 children who were attending the school in Buchans.
You know, things happen, because now there are great prospects from ore
resources that they will start a mine in Duck Pond by Millertown, and if they
do, that will be ten years of permanent employment. It will take about 250
people during construction and there will be about 150 people employed full time
for ten years. That is having foresight and it is also having compassion. Under
your plan, you would have probably said, move somewhere else and go to school,
judging from the Budget you put forward two days ago.
At the same time, we put a new school in Clarenville at $3.3 million. We also
put a new school in Hopedale at $5.4 million and in Nain at $2.8 million, Norman
Bay, $334,000. Now, if you were to ask the Member for Torngat Mountains or the
Member for L'anse au Clair were they pleased with the 2001 Budget, they would
say yes. What happened in this Budget, Budget 2004 brought forward by the new
Tory government? This Budget completely forgot about the people in Labrador.
This Budget 2004 completely forgot about the people in Labrador. They had been
promised by the Tory government that they would put an auditorium on their
school in Goose Bay, and the minister responsible for Labrador is not even
paying attention to what I am saying about the people that he represents. In
fact, he is chuckling down there in the corner. But this year in this Budget
that the new Tory government put forward, they decided to eliminate Labrador.
There was nothing in the Budget.
[Laughter]
MS THISTLE: Can you hear them laughing?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Can you hear them laughing?
That is what you care about Labrador? You are just chuckling away. You are
not paying any attention.
They would not even commit to the auditorium for the school in Goose Bay,
that they promised during their election campaign. They opted to go along with
the courthouse, and the young people, the students, have no other place to hold
their concerts, their events - no exposure. They were promised an auditorium by
the Tory government, when they were campaigning, and what are we hearing two
days after the Budget? Cancelled. Cancelled. Cancelled.
In Rigolet in 2001, there was a new school built at a cost of $2.9 million; a
new school built in Pollards Point for $3 million; a new school built in
Blaketown for $7 million. At the same time this report came out I will tell you
about the new schools that were under construction: Arnold's Cove, $6 million;
Burgeo, $4 million; Englee and Roddickton, $4 million; Goose Bay $11 million;
Lethbridge, $4.6 million; New World Island, $9 million; Plum Point, $4.5
million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to be clear for people who may be watching. The Member for Grand
Falls-Buchans just indicated that the auditorium for Goose Bay was cancelled.
That is absolutely not correct. If you had listened to the Budget Speech, or
read the Budget Speech, or the Estimates, the decision with that is deferred.
There is a big difference between cancelled and deferred. Deferred means
exactly what it is, that it will not happen at this time, this moment. The
decision on that could take place at any time in the near future.
MR. TAYLOR: It could be next week, next month.
MR. E. BYRNE: It could be next week. It could be next month, as the
Minister