Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 6 April 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 11)
2004-04-06
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 6, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 11
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Statements by Members
This afternoon under Statements by Members, we will be having statements by
the Member for Grand Bank, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, the Member
for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, the
Member for Port de Grave, and the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Byron Monster of
Fortune. Byron beat the best in Canada in the 100 kilogram Master II category in
the Canadian Powerlifting and Bench Press Championships held in Kitchener,
Ontario March 18-21.
Byron's squat of 557 pounds set a new Canadian record. He also received a
gold medal in powerlifting with his 557 pound squat, 319.5 pound bench press and
562 pound dead lift for a total weight of 1,438.5 pounds. He also received a
gold medal for his 303 pound squat in the separate Bench Press Championships.
This was Byron's seventh national championship.
Another athlete from Newfoundland and Labrador, George Power from
Stephenville, placed in the powerlifting event.
The men's team from Newfoundland and Labrador had one of its best showings
ever, placing second overall to the host Province of Ontario. Records were also
set by Tom Kean and Steve Wiseman of St. John's and Don Cormier of
Stephenville.
Tom Kean and Steve Wiseman also won gold medals, as did Mark Holloway, Paul
MacDonald and Ryan Rowsell of Newfoundland and Labrador. Bronze medals went to
Don Cormier and Jamie Emberley. Jamie is formerly of Marystown and lives in
Ontario but still lifts for Newfoundland and Labrador.
All of those lifters have qualified for the 2005 Nationals which will be held
Calgary next April.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending
congratulations to these fine athletes from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to extend
congratulations to the participants and organizers of the 2004 Newfoundland and
Labrador Provincial Finals of the Great Canadian Geography Challenge, an annual
student geography competition, a competition which took place on April 3 at All
Hallows Parish Hall in North River and was attended by seventeen junior high
students from across Newfoundland and Labrador.
The contestants, Mr. Speaker, earned the right to participate through
classroom competitions designed to generate an interest in geography in a fun
and interactive fashion. The top two winners of the challenge will represent the
Province in a national final in May via the Internet.
Top honours were captured in first place by Christina Price of MacDonald
Drive Junior High School in St. John's. Second place went to Oliver Winstanley
of Holy Trinity Elementary in Torbay, and third place to Jordan Doyle of
Roncalli Central High School, Avondale. The provincial co-ordinator, Mr. Peter
Laracy, certainly was delighted with the level of participation and commented
that the development of geographic literacy is essential in a world where modern
technology provides students -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HEDDERSON: The challenge is made possible through corporate and local
sponsorship, including the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, HSBC Bank of
Canada, Bell Canada, Imperial Oil Foundation, the Atlas of Canada and the
Geometrics Institute at Fleming.
I certainly would congratulate the organizers for a great competition, and in
particular I would like to extend thanks and appreciation to Mr. Denis Mulloy of
Steele Communications, who acted as quiz master for this competition for the
last ten years. Certainly, good luck is extended to the top finishers, Christina
and Oliver, in the national completion and I am sure that all members of this
House will join with me in congratulating all competitors, the sponsors and
organizers for a job well done.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright- L'anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate yet another phenomenal young person from the
District of Cartwright- L'anse au Clair. Seventeen year old Megan Pike, of
West St. Modeste, recently received a $50,000 TD Canada Trust Scholarship for
outstanding community leadership. This scholarship is awarded annually to twenty
students across Canada, two of whom are from Atlantic Canada. Megan met the TD
Canada Trust criteria by making a meaningful and lasting difference in her home
community. Ms Pike and a group of students recognized the need in their
community for young people. She then started the idea of a youth centre and was
the original organizer and key fundraiser for the project. She and her friends
started writing letters to businesses and organizations in the area and were
successful beyond their own expectations.
TD Canada Trust has recognized her efforts. This scholarship will pay $5,000
for her tuition for four years, and allow for $3,500 a year for living expenses.
In the summer between semesters, they have also given her an opportunity to work
for TD Canada Trust.
Megan now chairs the committee which operates the youth centre that she
founded in West St. Modeste and plans to pursue studies at Memorial University
this fall.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS JONES: Thank you.
I would like to conclude by asking all Members of the Assembly to join me in
congratulating Megan for her accomplishments and making us proud in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce that
today, the White Rose FPSO will arrive in Marystown. The 267 metre Sea Rose
which is completing its 14,000 nautical mile journey from South Korea, is the
largest vessel ever to tie up in Marystown. The Sea Rose will spend the
next year and a half at the Kiewit Offshore Services Fabrication Facility in
Marystown where work will be done to install and commission the topside units
for the offshore oil platform.
This project has given the local economy a major boost. Not only has it
brought benefits to the Marystown area; indeed residents of the entire Burin
Peninsula and the Province will reap the benefits of this work.
We have a capable workforce in this Province, who have proven themselves on
previous projects. At the completion of this White Rose Project we will once
again showcase for the world the potential of this Province's workforce.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to join me in congratulating those who
have worked diligently and cooperatively to bring this project to the area and
the Province, and I wish all involved the successful conclusion to the topside
work.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the
Ascension Collegiate Astros Girls' hockey team who took first place in the
Confederation Cup. The girl's team topped off a very successful tournament
with a 4 to 2 victory in the championship game held on February 8, at Mile One
Stadium. The Confederation Cup, now in its sixth year, brings in high school
hockey teams from across the Province, as well as the Atlantic region.
The Ascension Collegiate girls performed spectacularly with a record of six
wins and one loss.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, this same team made history in Newfoundland and
Labrador by winning the Women's High School Hockey 4-A Championships. This was
the first ever in this Province.
The Ascension Collegiate Astros boys team did well also, advancing to the
finals with a great deal of skill and talent, but losing to Gonzaga in a 4 to 3
victory in overtime. I want to congratulate Gonzaga.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to extend its congratulations to
the Province's new Confederation Cup Girls Champions, and the Province's
first Women's 4-A champions, the Ascension Collegiate Astros.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Daniel Lodge, a
native of Bonavista, on being selected as Memorial University's Amazing
Student of the Week. This is quite an achievement considering that over 16,000
students attend the university.
Mr. Speaker, Daniel is a second year medical student who maintains an 88 per
cent average. Perhaps more remarkable, is that he already holds a degree in
engineering.
Daniel's accomplishments are not limited to the world of academia, however.
He is also a very active member of the community and has extensive volunteer
experience both within the university and with outside agencies. And, Mr.
Speaker, somewhere in there, Daniel found the time to co-found and become
president of a very successful company.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that with his intelligence, dedication and commitment
to the community, this young man is well-equipped for a very bright future and I
ask all member of this Legislature to join me today in congratulating Daniel
Lodge.
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.
My question today is for the Government House Leader. Would the Government
House Leader like to try to explain to the people of the Province why the
government wasted thousands of dollars for a totally unnecessary session of this
Legislature last night when the Premier, who is the one-man show, has actually
said that we will lead by example and this government will only spend money that
is absolutely essential? Would the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, like to
explain to all the people of the Province why there was a totally unnecessary
expenditure last night or was it just because the one-man show ordered him to
have a session to try and bully the Opposition?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, there was no waste of money. The House operates both in day and
night sittings. I recall on many occasions, when the Leader of the Opposition
was Premier, that we were here for many nights. I also recall one sitting
lasting forty-six hours straight.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that government has an agenda both
legislative and otherwise. The Opposition House Leader has been informed, as
well as the NDP, that over the Easter period all of the legislation will be
given to them. We have a certain body of work that needs to be done. We will to
do it. It does not cost any more to do it from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. as it does
from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The fact of the matter is this, never before have I
seen an Opposition squiggle so much about sitting and doing some work in the
nighttime. We have a body of work to do. We intend to do it and we will not be
deterred from doing it, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Government House Leader knows the exact opposite of what he just said is
true. Last evening, particularly in a strike, where there had to be management
people brought in here to act as security for no reason at huge overtime bills.
The estimate provided to us was that it could be up to $30,000 last night to run
a session for which there was no urgency whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, and you would
know that we sat last week in the evenings because there was urgency to get
certain bills passed by March 31, which we cooperated in and did.
The question is this: Can the Government House Leader confirm that the
one-man show, who is in Gander today, ordered him to close the Legislature
tomorrow for the Easter break whether there is an agreement with 20,000 striking
public servants or not? Is that the instruction that will be followed tomorrow
at 5:00 p.m. in this Legislature?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Here, here!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, again, I guess, for the Leader of the
Opposition, this question is more about theatrics. Just five minutes before
Question Period started, I informed the Opposition House Leader that no decision
had been taken about the Easter break, that we would be making that decision
tomorrow morning, that we would be communicating it to the Opposition. Mr.
Speaker, it should be noted, also, what I informed the Opposition House Leader
was that no decision had been taken on the amount of time. Would it be to the
rules of the parliamentary calendar in two weeks? No decision has been taken.
My answer to the Leader of the Opposition is this: Ask your House Leader
before you stand up and ask a question and swallow yourself whole in front of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure if the one-man show were here instead of in Gander, Mr. Speaker,
that we would get the answer about closing tomorrow much more straightforwardly
than we just did.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The excuse that we
hear repeatedly coming from all the members opposite, when they are permitted to
speak, is that we have no choice in doing what we are doing now, we have
inherited a mess created by someone else, we are drowning in debt we are on the
verge of bankruptcy.
How does the Minister of Finance square those statements, Mr. Speaker, with
the representative of the bond rating agency, Moody's, yesterday, when asked a
question in Newfoundland and Labrador:
MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the member now to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: Is this Province on the verge of bankruptcy? How does the
Finance Minister answer when the Moody's representative said: We don't give
A credit ratings to provinces that are on the verge of bankruptcy? How does he
answer that question, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
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 a different tune from what the very Leader of the Opposition said some
while ago. I believe he used the same words; what a desperate financial
situation we are in.
Credit ratings are given on the basis of a government's fiscal plan to deal
with our problem. They are not taken at a snapshot in one specific time. What we
are going to do: We presented a fiscally responsible and prudent budget that is
going to get us back on the road to recovery, and I have every confidence that
we stayed a course that bond rating agencies will not only, in the long term,
maintain our rating but improve it; if we stayed a responsible course.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I take it that the fearmongering that we are almost bankrupt we
won't hear anymore from this Finance Minister. We won't hear that excuse
again, as I just understood the answer.
Mr. Speaker, I would like for the Finance Minister to answer this question
about a Budget he presented a week ago today. We have heard: We will take a new
approach, we will lead by example, we will only spend what is absolutely
essential. Can the Finance Minister, in that context, explain why on page
fourteen of the Estimates there is an amount budgeted for $20,000 for a housing
allowance for the one-man show, the Premier, who is supposed to be doing this
job for nothing? Can he answer that question?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier's salary has always been listed, as he knows. So are any basic
allowances listed. So is the allowance that this government brought in when he
sat in this government and brought in that allowance. He used it when he sat in
this government. The Premier of the Province has foregone his salary, on behalf
of the people of this Province. He does not -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. minister has the floor. Question Period is very short, so we should
let him complete his answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We saw the former Premier of this Province stand in this House and talk about
a housing allowance that was brought in by that government, when they were
there. It is there, whether the Premier uses it or he does not. You will have to
ask the Premier if he wants to use it, or whether he is not going to use it, and
not ask me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would like nothing more than to ask
the Premier. If he would only ever show up in this Legislature again, I would
love to ask the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, again, the words I just heard from the Finance Minister - now I
expect them from the one-man show who has shown that he is a slick lawyer - l a
w y e r - a slick lawyer, and he uses it constantly in Newfoundland and
Labrador. The Finance Minister said the Premier has foregone his salary. If he
had foregone his salary and if he was going to forego his salary this year,
including this $20,000 for a housing allowance, why does it need to show up in
the Budget that you presented as an expenditure that this government is going to
make if nobody is going to take it? Why is in the Budget?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition knows fully well it is not a housing allowance.
He knows fully well what it is there for. It was $20,000 put in, when he sat
either in the Premier's Office or a minister at the time, for the Premier of
the Province if he has to incur costs for entertainment or whatever while he is
at home.
The Premier of this Province will determine if he wants to use any or all of
that allowance. In the past it has been used. I would like him to ask me a
question why my travel and communication is $20,000 less than the former
minister used in this position.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad the Finance Minister is leading exactly where I would like to go
about the kinds of issues that are here.
Mr. Speaker, again, the language was - and this is what this government and
the one-man show, the slick lawyer, would like everybody in Newfoundland and
Labrador to believe -
AN HON. MEMBER: The slick what? (Inaudible)
MR. GRIMES: L a w y e r. Maybe I do not pronounce the word lawyer too
well. I know how to spell it - l a w y e r - slick lawyer, and I will keep
saying it until the cows come home. I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister is suggesting he foregoes
the salary. Why is there an allocation written in this Budget to be paid out
this year, not to be the Budget lowered by this but to be paid out, $68,252 for
the Premier on top of his $70,000 salary as an MHA? Why are those members -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: - in the Budget presented by this Finance Minister for a
person who wants the Province to believe he does not take any money?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will answer the question, but the Leader of the Opposition knows that there
are seventy-five hours allotted outside this time to explain every single item
in the Estimates and there is a provision, but I will answer it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: I will answer it for him, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: I will answer it. It is because it is an entitlement that
is listed and available to the Premier to take. The Premier chooses not to take
either one of these two, I understand, and donate it to a charitable cause for
people to use for worthwhile purposes in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Wouldn't the Finance Minister also agree that, in fact, there is an $8,000
car allowance budgeted for the same one-man show Premier, who does not want to
take any money, along with free gas, Mr. Speaker, for every time he fills up
that vehicle for the year, and that is going to be paid out to the Premier of
the Province because it cannot leave his Budget any other way than for him to
pass it out from the Treasury and give it to the Premier? Is he trying to
suggest -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Is he trying to suggest that total, which is altogether $170,000, is in the
Budget and will not be spent by the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador? Or,
is he going to admit that it is actually taken by the Premier and used for his
own benefit in a charity that then gives him a $30,000 or $40,000 tax break on
top of it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
His salary as Premier, and as a Member of this House of Assembly, he has
indicated, is listed in the Estimates and he has agreed that it would be donated
to a charitable purpose. It does come out of the Province and go to a charitable
purpose.
As for the car allowance, I will say, Mr. Speaker, he decided not to use a
government car that the former Premier used, a $50,000, LHS -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: - and a $50,000 Grand Cherokee for personal use. Two
$50,000 vehicles were used by that man when he was Premier in this Province, at
taxpayers' expense. The current Premier does not want anything to do with two
$50,000 public vehicles. He will drive to work in his own vehicle.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am glad he raised that issue because the one-man show,
the slick lawyer who is not here again today, has said, I will lead by example
by not using the two vehicles that were in the Premier's office, have been
there since the Member for Lewisporte, and the Minister of Transportation and
Works, and Brian Peckford used to be there years ago. He gave the impression
that there are savings to the government.
Would the Finance Minister like to tell this House where those two vehicles
are now being used? Were they sold for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador,
or are they still being used somewhere else in the government and pretending
that there is actually some savings associated with that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will answer it in two parts. Number one, they are not being used for the
personal use of the Premier; those two vehicles like was used for the former
Premier when he drove no personal vehicle of his own. He drove a government
vehicle, which was a Jeep Cherokee, and he drove a LHS car on government
business.
The second part of that question, Mr. Speaker, I have asked since last
November for a review of every single government vehicle, its lease and its use
in government, and we are going to look at use of government vehicles in an
efficient manner and only use what is necessary.
In the past we had been paying for vehicles, insurance -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have been paying for vehicles in the past
that were not in use and still paying insurance on them long after they were
taken out of service. That was the sloppy way that government did business in
the past.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see that the Finance Minister is trying to learn some of the
tactics used by the one-man show, the slick lawyer. In fact, if you will check
Motor Vehicle Registration you will find out that I personally have owned a
vehicle ever since I have been twenty-two years old. Check your own records.
Trying to suggest that I did not own a vehicle, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his supplementary.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, would not the Finance Minister agree that the
only way for his Budget to improve by the $170,000 that goes into the hands of
the Premier, the one-man show, is for us to agree to amend the Budget? Take out
the $20,000, take out the $68,000, take out the $70,000, take out the $10,000 or
$12,000 for car a allowance, and then the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
might benefit by $170,000 -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: - which could be up to eight full-time jobs that he would not
have to get rid of or sixteen part-time jobs that he could keep instead of
passing the money over to the Premier, pretending he does not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I want to clarify that I have never said he didn't own a
personal vehicle. I have said he drove a personal vehicle, a Grand Cherokee, for
personal use continuously while he was Premier of this Province and had the
services of an LHS car. I didn't say he didn't have other vehicles. That is
what he used. When he lost the job as Premier both of these vehicles reverted
back to government.
It is the Premier's prerogative to have a salary listed. If he wants to
donate that to charity it is his choice. If he wants to keep it, it is his
choice. He has decided to donate it to charity, and if the former Premier doesn't
like that he is going to have to live with that person's entitlement and what
he wants to do with it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I don't mean to prolong this, but what I don't
like and what the people of the Province don't like is being misled by the
government to believe that there is $170,000 that is associated with the Premier's
office that is not being paid out. That is what they want people to believe. We
are finding out now that it is paid out, it is in the Budget, it does get spend
and it could be twenty jobs instead. If the Premier really wanted to do
something he could leave it with the Finance Minister.
Now, back to this last question on this issue, Mr. Speaker. There are
thirteen other ministers, the Speaker himself and myself, who also receive a car
allowance valued at over $10,000 a year. We are supposedly drowning in debt, we
are supposedly in a circumstance where we will only spend money if absolutely
essential. That is why there are 20,000 people on the streets because we have no
money to meet their needs.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Wouldn't the minister agree that all of us, and I will lead by example,
should amend the Budget by a total of $160,000, take out the sixteen car
allowances because it is not essential and lead by example, as they said they
are going to do. Will he do that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and the President of
Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I would like to correct the former Premier who should know that
it is not $10,000, number one. It is $8,000 taxable allowance. Based on the
salary it nets out -
AN HON. MEMBER: With the credit card for gas.
MR. SULLIVAN: I don't use the credit card for gas. I am not aware of
it, I don't use it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The Minister of Finance has the floor and he should be able to answer the
question in relative silence.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They are assuming we are doing what they did. There is about a net of $3,700
after taxes for a car allowance. We cannot charge, I understand - I have never
used it, never done it, never charged it - the kilometers that you would
normally charge if you are getting a car allowance. If you want to eliminate
that and use the regular that anybody could use, that is an option. There is an
option to amend that and they know when it can be amended and they shouldn't
be grandstanding. There is an opportunity to do that in the proper way.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister now to complete his answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: To give that impression, Mr. Speaker, that this side of the
House is going to rip off the people like they did, he is mistaken. We are not
going to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, one final question. I do not want to belabour it, but one final
question on a different issue and then I will gladly have other questioners.
This, unfortunately, is the second Question Period in a row in which the
Premier has decided that there are more important things for him to do than to
answer questions about what is happening with 20,000 people on the streets.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
He would rather ruin any chance of a settlement by going out and attacking
the character of the union leaders and anybody else who dares to oppose him.
Would the Finance Minister, as the chief negotiator, who I understand is trying
to reach a settlement, would he speak to the one-man show, the slick lawyer, his
Premier, his boss, and ask him, in the sake of trying to get a settlement, to
impose a media blackout, which I will certainly gladly participate in, in
helping the cause, instead of this character assassination that is only making
matters worse. It has been a disaster since January 5; it is only getting worse.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: Would he talk to him about having a media blackout, and
getting back to some real, respectful negotiations?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to know if the reason he wants a blackout now is so that it will
not become public, prior to the strike on a Sunday night, the meeting that he
and Mr. Puddister and Mr. Hanlon had here in this building?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Now I know he is learning from the slick lawyer, one-man show. I had no
meeting - and I can say it absolutely with every ounce of honesty in my body - I
have not met with Mr. Puddister, I have not met with Mr. Hanlon, I have not met
with Mr. Lucas. I am not involved in these negotiations. I am doing my job as
the Leader of the Opposition, and their approach is to attack anyone who dares
disagree with them, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask for an apology. If he is any
kind of an hon. member, he will apologize for telling that lie!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition knows that he cannot say about another hon.
member that he has told a lie. He has been pushing the envelope all day, fair
enough, but he has crossed the bounds between what is parliamentary and what is
not parliamentary.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to ask him to withdraw his comment, which basically
said that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, where he said
that he lied.
MR. SPEAKER: Is there an agreement that if we are going to discuss this
point now that we can extend the Question Period the same amount of time? If
that is so, then we can -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.
MR. SPEAKER: Not on this issue?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) the right to argue this point after. The
Government House Leader knows full well he is doing this only to waste Question
Period time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will defer the discussion and ruling until
immediately after Question Period. Then we will hear from any other
representations that need to be made.
Question Period continues.
We have room for one question by the Member for Port de Grave before we move
on to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this session I asked the Minister of Human Resources,
Labour and Employment and the Status of Women a question about the backlog of
work in her department. She stood in this House and stated that this issue had
been rectified. The information I have, Mr. Speaker, from reliable sources, is
contrary to what the minister had said at that time. Mr. Speaker, there are not
enough workers to deal with the caseload. I ask the minister: Does she stand by
her statement of March 29, 2004?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment is very concerned about efficiencies in our department. We are in the
process of rolling out a new computerized pay system which will help us achieve
100 per cent compliance with all of our policies at all times.
It is also my information, that I have been advised by the reliable sources
within our department, that the inefficiencies, or the backlog of work, that was
addressed by the hon. member has been taken care of, and I do stand by that
comment.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Under the agreement by all parties in the House it is twenty-six minutes
since Question Period began and we now go to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier, but in his absence the Minister of Finance.
Will this government stop working on the public to undermine the leadership of
the public sector union by attacks on their integrity, their approach to
leadership and, in fact, convincing people out there, Mr. Speaker, that this
Premier and this government does not want to settle this strike? In fact, will
the Minister of Finance acknowledge that there may be 20,000 people out on
strike on some sort of expensive, cynical and hurtful diversion from this
government's real agenda of cutbacks, the Budget, layoffs and all of that, and
that the people out there are suffering because this government, and this
Premier, does not really want an agreement and they want those people out on
strike?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I spoke with Mr. Puddister yesterday and he asked me if we could advance and
move negotiations and I said yes, I am quite interested, and we would like to
receive a proposal from them. He informed me that he would be convening his
people today and he would be putting a proposal back to us before the end of
today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know that the union wants to make a settlement, has made offers and has
told this government that if they remove these divide and conquer, regressive
and unacceptable concessions from the table, that a deal can be had.
The question is, Mr. Speaker, does this government want to deal or are they
going to continue the same divide and conquer tactics in their negotiations with
divide and conquer, regressive and unacceptable concessions or are they going to
make a fair offer and settle this strike?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We thought we made a very fair offer to the unions on March 31. Obviously, in
any negotiations there are differences of opinion. Even the NAPE Web site, which
I looked at yesterday, shows that there are certain things even indicated there
that was not in the last agreement that they want; that was not even in the last
agreement. Obviously, there are things that we put to the table too, that were
not in the last agreement. We want to see a settlement to this. We are sincere
in getting people back to work here in our Province, our employees. We want to
see it happen. We hope the resolve will be there from the unions too, and we
want to get back to normal here in the operations of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: We have time for one quick question.
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the hon. minister, who is running her department? It seems like it
is another one-line minister. Mr. Speaker, last week this minister admitted that
there was a decision being made to close twenty offices in this Province while
there was a $350,000 office being opened in Ottawa. She did not know which
offices would be closing but she said she would advise this hon. House as soon
as that decision had been made.
I ask the minister for a further update on the closure of the now anticipated
thirty offices and whether or not any action has been taken to close those
offices at this point in time, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment for a very quick reply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we are implementing a new
computerized pay system. We will be bringing the Department of Human Resources,
Labour and Employment out of the 1960s. We will be aiming for 100 per cent
compliance. We will be using advanced communications and technology.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS BURKE: In achieving these efficiencies in our system -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The minister is attempting to answer the question and it is impossible for
the Chair or anyone else to hear her answer if the House does not cooperate.
The hon. the minister in about ten seconds. Go ahead.
MS BURKE: In our attempt to achieve efficiencies we will be closing some
offices. As I indicated last week, once we have made the decisions they will be
known publicly.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
As indicated during Question Period, we had a point of order raised by the
Government House Leader. Is it the wish of the House that we would discuss that
matter now?
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would certainly like to speak to the point of order which was raised by the
Government House Leader during Question Period. We have had a repeat of this on
numerous occasions in the two weeks that this House has been open, that the
Government House Leader, whenever things get hot in their kitchen he tends to
jump up and try to shut up the Opposition from asking their question on points
of order and wasting time. We saw it here again today.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when people get into a situation in this House when they
utter words that are considered unparliamentary, sometimes it is quite
deliberate and intentional to infuriate the other side. Sometimes it is said
because somebody has been deliberately provoked, all of which must be taken into
consideration by Your Honour in making a ruling. Now, here today, Mr. Speaker,
the Opposition Leader feels, without question, that the Minister of Finance has
made a statement here today in Question Period that he knows to be absolutely
incorrect, that he knows is untrue, and you can put whatever fancy words you
wish on it. You can call it a terminological inexactitude if you wish but the
bottom line is, he made a statement that is not proper and he ought not to be
provoking somebody by making those types of statements. It is a two-way street.
If we are going to have decorum in this House, the other side has to respect the
right of this side to ask questions, and when they answer their questions they
should give answers instead of provocations. That is what has happened here.
If the Government House Leader thinks that he is going to pound this crowd
over here into submission by standing on these points of order, I say to him
right now, it ain't on. It is not going to happen so he may as well give it
up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks by the Opposition
House Leader and to assure him, there is no intent, from my point of view, to
pound into submission as he has indicated. I am not that type of person.
The Government House Leader indicated that there was a provocation. He
believes that the Leader of the Opposition, the statement made by the Minister
of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the Leader of the Opposition
says that it is not true. The Opposition House Leader said he can call it a
terminological inexactitude. He can call it whatever he wants but there is one
thing he cannot call it, and that is a lie in this House. That is paramount -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I listened with the absolute courtesy to the
Opposition House Leader and I would appreciate from the Member for Bellevue and
the Member for Twillingate-Fogo the same opportunity.
My point is this, that there are differences of opinion in this House all the
time. There is language that we can and cannot use. Whatever and however the
Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition House Leader want to characterize a
statement, there was one thing that they cannot say, that none of us can say
without being called to order on it or called to attention, and that is the
member is a liar.
MR. SPEAKER: Did I see the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi wishing to
address the House?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just briefly.
We have a situation here where a member said something that was regarded on
the other side - it was a factual matter. This is not a matter of opinion. Did
something happen or did it not? The member said something that is discerned to
be untrue and is factually untrue.
The use of the word liar is consistently held to be unparliamentary. If he
called him a liar and said that he was a liar, then that would be
unparliamentary. What he said was that the statement was a lie. That it was not
true. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a very fine line between that. It just really
means that the member opposite, who made the statement, all he says is that he
thought it was true and then it is not a deliberate lie. It still can be untrue,
but we cannot have a situation where you can stand up in this House and tell as
many lies as you want and nobody can say that they are lies. We have to be very
careful here that we do not set up a situation where the public is out there
saying: You can't believe anything that they say because they can say what
they like. No one can point out the wrongness of what someone is saying.
There is a distinction between someone being a liar and someone telling
something that is untrue. That is a very fine distinction and Your Honour has to
make it, but I think in this case if the member is prepared to stand up and say
that he thought this meeting took place and now he understands it did not, then
I think the matter has ended.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks by the Leader of the
NDP. If we were to use that logic than every question in Question Period today
and other days, or for that matter any statements in the House, would have to
come under the same rule. But, the fact of the matter is - and we cannot escape
this parliamentary rule that is simple, that is true, that has been true for the
test of time. You cannot say in this House and infer on another member that what
he said was a lie. It is not parliamentary and it should not stand in the record
of the House with being either unchecked, withdrawn, or some other action taken.
That is the fact of the matter, I say to the member opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: It is (inaudible) recorded in Beauchesne and all
reputable and parliamentary references used in the Commonwealth of countries,
that we should always show the greatest respect for the integrity of all
members. That is fundamental to the operation of our parliamentary system.
In dealing with unparliamentary language the Speaker takes into account the
entire circumstance, the words said, the circumstances in which they are said,
the intention of the member who is speaking, the person to whom the words were
addressed, degree of provocation, and most importantly of all, whether or not
there was disorder caused in the House.
When we deal with words we found that a codification of words has not been
found to be acceptable, so therefore we look at all of the circumstances. But,
we have to always remember that we have to be very careful when using language.
In this particular case, in consultation with the people at the Table, I will
review the transcript immediately and I will be back to the House before the
afternoon is out to render a decision on that matter.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: Honourable members, in accordance with
Section 39(2) of the
Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, I hereby table the RNC Public Complaints
Commission Annual Report for the period ending March 31, 2003.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents from South Branch
to Rose Blanche concerning the health care situation in that particular area, or
the anticipated health care situation. This is a petition, this one in
particular, which stretches from Rose Blanche to South Branch has about 300
names on it, and concerns the impending review of the health care system in that
area.
There has been much speculation in the last two months based upon a request
from the Minister of Health that there be cost cutting measures undertaken in
Western Newfoundland. Reports apparently have been circulating - which, by the
way, I have been lucky enough now and fortunate enough to be provided a copy of,
notwithstanding the minister's reticence in providing it to me. Indeed, the
concern is that clinics will be closed in places like Rose Blanche and Doyles.
The health care facility in Port aux Basques will be - the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow
Health Centre itself - downgraded to a clinic status. These are the concerns
people have. They fully appreciate that there is a committee in place now, the
HAY committee or the HAY group, studying the Western Health Care Boards. We are
fully aware of the government's intention, of course, to review the situation
on how many boards should exist and so on. They realize they have to await that.
The purpose of the petition is to make it clear to the minister that the
health care situation in Southwestern Newfoundland is already cut to the bone.
You cannot take from something that is already in minimal status. They want me,
as their member, to make sure that the minister, who is here today, is well
aware of the concerns of the people in Southwestern Newfoundland. Although you
may need to make cost-cutting measures in order to keep a system effective,
efficient and sustainable, there are limits to that. Dollar signs and trying to
save dollars are not the only thing you have to look at. You must look at and
you must have a social conscience. You have to consider that people need these
services.
The people in rural Newfoundland have it tough enough as it is. They cannot
travel three and four miles to access these health care services. They need the
bare minimum that they already have. That is the purpose of this petition, to
make the minister aware that the people of rural Newfoundland - it is not like
living in CBS; it is not like living in Mount Pearl; it is not like living down
the street on Water Street. They do not have the major facilities that you have.
They understand they cannot have them, but they want at least the bare minimum
that they need to survive in rural Newfoundland, or we will not have to worry
about saving money, because four years out, when you have a balanced budget, you
will have nothing to do with your money other than spend it in urban areas
because there will be no rural Newfoundland, and a Rural Secretariat will not be
necessary.
That is the point of the petition. I can assure the minister and government
that there are at least twenty more such petitions en route. I have been
requested to present them in this House and I will certainly undertake to do
that on behalf of the people of Burgeo & LaPoile and the Codroy Valley,
which falls within the district of the Minister of Human Resources and Labour.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to rise and present another petition from my district with regard to
the Labrador marine services.
Mr. Speaker, I was denied leave yesterday by the Minister of Transportation
and Works, but I have three minutes again today and I will certainly continue to
speak to this issue everyday until we have a decision.
Mr. Speaker, the people in my district have been waiting for this government
to make a decision on marine services for months right now. Last fall they had
to go out and launch a full-scale protest to try and get a decision out of this
government as to what the marine services would look like. Mr. Speaker, they
made a commitment to the people in my district back in the fall and they told
them they were going to hire a consultant, they were going to have a study
prepared. They would look at whatever this consultant brought forward to them.
They would make a decision and they would have the marine services in place by
February, or the end of February.
Mr. Speaker, we still do not have a decision. Right now, the people of my
district do not know what kind of service they will have come this summer, which
is only a few, maybe six, weeks away. They do not have a reservation service.
They do not have an information service. They do not have a boat. They do not
have a schedule, and I think that the minister and the government are negligent
in how they are dealing with this particular issue; but, Mr. Speaker, there is
politics in all of this. It is not about whether there should be a ferry that
operates between Cartwright and Goose Bay.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am being -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Members know that the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair has the floor
of the House. She is addressing the House on an issue of concern to her
district, and we ask that she be able to be heard in relative silence.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am consistently being attacked by the members on this side of the House
whenever I speak to the marine service issue in my district, Mr. Speaker,
because it is a political issue. It is a political issue for the minister who
runs that department. On October 29, when he was running in an election, he was
quoted in The Pilot in Lewisporte, saying that bringing the Coastal
Labrador marine service freight and passenger service back to Lewisporte will be
an important move in the direction for Central Newfoundland and Lewisporte.
After he was sworn in as the minister for that department, the minister who
would solely be the one to look at the consultant's report, to take it to
Cabinet and to make the decision, said this on November 12: Not only is there a
big job to be done in this department for the whole Province, but there are
issues that are very much alive in terms of Lewisporte. Topping that list for
the minister is the Labrador marine freight and ferry service.
Mr. Speaker, this minister is trying to take a Labrador ferry, that is there
for the people of Labrador, and move it to his own district in Lewisporte.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Sir Robert Bond . We are
not talking about a freight service for the people of Northern Labrador. The
people of Northern Labrador want to have their freight boat operate out of
Lewisporte to Nain, and I have no problem with that, but I have a problem when
this government wants to, for political reasons, take the Labrador ferry and
operate it out of the minister's home district in Lewisporte. I think this
minister has not been unbiased in this process. I think that is why we have not
had a decision on this service at this time. The people in my district need to
have an answer. They need to know what kind of service they will have this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, all the minister does is walk into this Chamber
every day that I raise this issue and shout at me from across the floor from his
seat. He should be out there telling the people what decision his government is
making, and how it will impact them.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has now expired.
MS JONES: By leave?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
Orders of the Day
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The House wishes to proceed with its business. The Chair has called Orders of
the Day. If members have disagreements with each other, then I would advise them
to carry on their discussions outside the House because we wish to proceed with
the agenda which is before the House, which is the Orders of the Day.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 1: To Move That This House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of
the Government.
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.
I am delighted to stand once more in letting the people of the Province know
what is in the Budget and how it will affect the people of our Province.
I cannot begin my debate this afternoon without making mention of the
extravagance that was spent here in this House of Assembly last night. I cannot
begin to speak without letting the general public know that last night, for no
good reason, a total unnecessary cost to the taxpayers of this Province was
expended. We have approximately two months available to us, and it is longer
than that if we wish, to debate issues concerning the Budget, and last night the
Leader of the Opposition - excuse me, the Government House Leader; I am not used
to that new terminology yet - the Government House Leader stood in his place and
he asked this House to remain open beyond the normal 5:30 p.m. deadline.
Now, what did that do to taxpayers in this Province? Why was it necessary? As
I said last night, Mr. Speaker, the Order Paper was absolutely blank. There was
no legislation on the Order Paper whatsoever. Yet, the Government House Leader
stood in his place and asked - and insisted, mind you - insisted that this House
of Assembly be open, and would be open for no good reason, only so that the
people of this Province would have an extra $30, 000 to pay out, when that
$30,000 could be spent in a far greater manner.
Do you know what it cost to have this House of Assembly open last night? It
cost extra security, the people who were outside the House of Assembly and
inside on overtime per hour. It cost hundreds of dollars in meals. They had to
be ordered in meals from outside caterers. We had four Hansard staff on duty
here last night, recording whatever was said. Then there was a TV staff of four
people, Commissioners of ten people, and a TV satellite of $5,000. You add all
of that up, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that what that will be off $30,000 is
very little.
We have a Government House Leader who is insisting that this House be closed
tomorrow. We only opened this House a week ago. It is a week ago today since the
Budget was brought down. The government of the day could have opened this House
before Christmas, they could have opened it in January or February, but no, they
only opened it a week ago. Here, they are wanting to close the House tomorrow
when 20,000 public servants are out on strike. They are wanting to close the
House. They do not care if there is any dialogue going to happen to and fro
regarding the situation with strikers left out in the cold today, and government
services that are not available to the people of the Province who need them the
most. No, that does not matter. They are insistent. They have one agenda, and
that one agenda is to close this House tomorrow come hell or high water.
Mr. Speaker, I guess that was a display, a display of arrogance of this
government, and a display of - they are really speaking out of two sides of
their mouth because they will get up and say that this government was left in a
cash-strapped position; we are almost on the verge of bankruptcy; our deficit is
much greater than it was, and here they can go out on a Monday night and insist
that the House of Assembly extend its hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. I guess
it is all around justification. If you can find a way to deflect from the real
truth of the matter and use justification, you will mange to get anything you
want, I guess, in this life; but, I can tell you, they are not going to fool all
the people all of the time, because I think anyone who is viewing this session
of the House of Assembly so far can see for themselves that we do not mind
accommodating the government when there is urgent legislation to go through. I
think we already demonstrated that co-operation when it was necessary. We passed
Interim Supply; it was necessary. We wanted to make sure that everyone who
depends on a cheque from government is going to be able to get that cheque. We
also passed unnecessary legislation when it was just political maneuvering on
the government's part, for the Student Assistance Loan Act. We did that. We
cooperated, but to have the House of Assembly open here last night for three
extra hours and probably upwards to $30,000 being spent. I would be the first
one to say in my district alone, as MHA for Grand Falls-Buchans, many times
people will come to me and they will be looking for extra home support hours;
they will be looking for extra drugs; they will be looking for wheelchairs; they
will be looking for glasses; they will be looking for false teeth. They will be
looking for lots of things; they will be looking for a trip to St. John's to
see a medical specialist. Yet, I will have to say, I tried, but there is no way
that I can get you this extra money. It is not in the Budget. For the government
to come out last night and unnecessarily spend this kind of money for no good
reason, when I can stand here in this House any day from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
or any member in this House can do the same. We have two months to discuss the
Budget.
Now I know there is a lot of bad news in that Budget, and I know full well
that the government do not want me to stand in this place. They would like
nothing better than to shut me up so I will not be able to tell the people of
the Province how this Budget is going to affect them. I can say one thing here
today, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be shut up. I have as much time as I need
to tell the people of the Province what has been going on here with this Budget.
I am going to use that time and let people know their rights, and I am going to
exercise mine. So there is no way that I am going to be sat down ahead of time.
You talk about deflection. We witnessed deflection today when the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board accused the Leader of the Opposition of
having a meeting with former union leader Tom Hanlon, current NAPE leader, Leo
Puddister, and current CUPE leader, Wayne Lucas. You know, the Minister of
Finance could not stand in his place and say accurately that, yes, he knew full
well that meeting had been with the Leader of the Opposition because that was
incorrect, but yet he left that out there. He left the impression that a meeting
had taken place on Sunday night between the individuals described. He left that
out there for public consumption when he knew full well that that meeting did
not occur. If that is not a slick lawyer deflection, I do not know what is.
We have seen a lot of that over the past few days, and I do not think that
has any place in this House of Assembly. Instead of dealing with the situation
at hand, telling the truth - we are in this House where we stand up and we have
to tell the truth. We must tell the truth on behalf of the people who put us
here, but to leave that impression here today is a deflection tactic. It is a
slick lawyer, l-a-w-y-e-r, deflection tactic that the Minister of Finance and
the President of Treasury Board has used. He knows full well the meeting did not
occur, but he left that impression. He would be better serving the people of
this Province if he dealt with the matter at hand, and that matter at hand is
getting back to the bargaining table and striking up a deal that the public
servants of this Province can live with and the people of the Province can live
with, instead of bashing in the media and looking for ways to deflect from the
real issue of the day. That is actually what happened here today.
I want to talk about a few things here today. You know, I was surprised last
night, I was really surprised, when I was looking through The Western Star
and there was an editorial there by a reporter who works for The Western Star .
His name is Frank Gale. I want to talk about something that was there in that
program. I think it all ties in with - the new government of the day, in their
Budget, made a news release that they have $1.7 million allocated to a rural
secretariat. According to the news release, the government's own words, they
are saying: Economic and social development relies on a network of urban and
rural communities, ensuring that these communities, especially those in rural
areas, are healthy enough to be partners in growth.
What it is they are doing is that - it says: Government alone cannot ensure
the vibrancy of our communities. Community and government organizations need to
come together. Now, is this what coming together is going to mean? Does this
mean that there are going to be two or three centres of urban growth in this
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and forget about the rest?
Dr. Doug House, who is Deputy Minister for the Department of Innovation,
Trade and Rural Development, was the first to speak at the opening of the Bay
St. George Chamber of Commerce, and that was April 3. This is what he said. I
couldn't believe my eyes when I read it. His keynote address was entitled,
Beyond Dependency and Entitlement. The new approach and its implications for the
Bay St. George area. Now, I wonder if he had that same speaking engagement in
Grand Falls-Windsor, what would he say. Why would he say this on behalf of the
Minister of Innovation and Rural Development? Doesn't the minister speak for
the department?
He said: There is a new era in post-Confederation Newfoundland. That is
something he would have said twelve years ago, I guess, when he was here in
government. He said: Which is to get beyond the dependency on Ottawa and the
debilitating sense of entitlement that has been engendered in too many of our
people. That is fine for him to say. He has a posh Deputy Minister job in the
new Department of Innovation and Rural Development, whatever they are calling
it. What about the people in rural Newfoundland who are on seasonal employment
and hoping to carve out a living for them and their families? This is what he
goes on to say: Too many of our people - such as having the right to employment
insurance.... Now what is wrong with having the right to Employment Insurance?
If you represent a district like I do, and a lot of the seasonal work is
logging, then there is farming and of course there is fishing, and there is
tourism, what would be wrong with being able to collect Employment Insurance?
Especially when you look at the fact that there is about a $40 billion surplus
in the EI fund that workers all across the country have contributed to the
federal economy, what is wrong with being able to collect Employment Insurance?
Look at the fisherpeople in our Province. Shouldn't they have the right to
collect Employment Insurance?
Dr. Doug House goes on to say that he does not believe in job creation
monies. Well, you tell that to the people in King's Point or Springdale or
Robert's Arm or Buchans or Badger or Buchans Junction. He does not believe in
job creation monies? He does not believe in trying to get the people who have no
prospects of employment in their own communities, where unemployment is 70 per
cent and 80 per cent, he does not believe in job creation monies so they can
experience the dignity of work even though it is for minimum wage? He does not
believe in that? He would rather see these people on the welfare systems of our
Province, burdening the welfare system. I think he has been in the Confederation
Building too long, in the hallways.
He does not believe in sick leave? Now, what kind of a society you would
have, who worked, that did not believe in sick leave. Sick leave is only for one
reason; it is to be put aside in the event of sickness or injury. Who would take
care of a family if sick leave was not provided? His recommendations seem to be
pretty right-wing in my opinion.
He does not believe in pay increases - even as the Province cannot afford
such benefits. He does not believe in providing a pay incentive to people in
this Province unless the Province can afford it. Well, would he also accept the
same thing? Would he be willing to cut his payroll cheque in half? I doubt it.
I think the most glaring recommendation in his speech was what he said. He
said, this is where their blueprint - their blueprint; he is supposed to be
non-partisan. A deputy minister in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
is not suppose to go around with any political stipes attached to their sleeves.
A deputy minister is supposed to be totally neutral, and this is what he says.
He said: That is where their blueprint for the future applies. He said: There
are implications of strong urban regions and they are looking at Stephenville,
Corner Brook, Deer Lake, as a second urban corridor in the Province.
Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? He is designating Stephenville, Corner
Brook, Deer Lake as a second urban corridor in this Province. Now, that is his
idea of creating a Rural Secretariat. If it was left up to Dr. Doug House,
everyone would move out of rural Newfoundland and they would head to a big urban
centre, and he has already designated the one in the western region so I wonder
what does he have in mind now for Central Newfoundland? We have not heard that
one yet, so I think I will alert the Chamber of Commerce in Grand Falls-Windsor
now, the Exploits Chamber of Commerce, that if you invite Dr. Doug House to
speak at your Chamber luncheon, he is sure to tell you where the next, third,
urban centre is going to be for Central Newfoundland; but, give him a bit of
time. Perhaps he does not need any time because perhaps he already has it made
up and he is waiting for an invitation, something like the Premier shopping
around for an invitation, to go out and give this news. Anyway, this is $1.7
million allocated to the Rural Secretariat - the Rural Secretariat.
I would like to say to this hon. House today that we worked hard as a former
government trying to deal with out-migration. We worked really hard. Everybody
knows what caused out-migration and it has been a pattern, I guess, ever since
Confederation. All of us have relatives who have gone outside of Newfoundland
and Labrador for employment. I remember when I was growing up, as a young girl
in Carbonear, it was pretty common for people from my area to head to the U.S.
Bricklayers, carpenters, iron workers, all of those people, they were not so
much accustomed to going to different parts of Canada but it was pretty common
for most of these people to go to the U.S. and find employment, particularly
after the cod moratorium in 1992. Our Province felt devastated, but ten years
later we have rebounded. Economists will tell you all across our wonderful
country that Newfoundland and Labrador is certainly a place to look at and it is
forward-looking.
There was a news release that was put out. It was September 25, 2003, and it
talked about out-migration, and these are figures from Stats Canada. It says:
There was positive net migration - net migration not out-migration; migration,
meaning that people had come to our Province - between July 1, 2002 and July 1,
2003. According to information released today by Stats Canada, during that
period the Province's population increased by 300 people.
Now, isn't that wonderful? July 1, which is Canada Day, it is worth noting,
we had our first increase, I suppose. I do not know when. At least it was a
decade. There was an increase of 300 people actually coming and choosing to live
in our Province. That brought our population on July 1, 2003 to 519,570 people.
So a lot of positive things have been done over the past ten years to erase the
traces of out-migration to our Province. Now I question the government's
rationale for wanting to spend $1.7 million for a Rural Secretariat. That is
almost too much to imagine, why you would create another layer of government
when we already have twenty economic zone boards operating within our Province,
and a lot of them have done an extremely good job.
I am particularly proud of Economic Zone Board 12, in my district. They have
had a record of success. They have sprouted out in a lot of different areas,
particularly information technology, with the opening of our (inaudible) Centre
in Grand Falls-Windsor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Then again, mining in Central Newfoundland, I guess, is the
second largest mining development outside of Voisey's Bay. I know there are
great prospects happening all over Central Newfoundland in a lot of areas for
mining. So mining has a lot of potential in Central Newfoundland. However, I am
surprised that this new government never made any attempt to secure funding for
economic development in this Province. I do not know what will be the outcome or
the status of those twenty economic zone boards. We know the funding that kept
them alive was cost-shared by the federal and provincial government. The federal
government paid 70 per cert and the provincial government paid 30 per cent, but
now we know that there has not been any hard lobbing going on between the
current provincial government and the federal government. I would say I know
full well, that people in my economic zone board, that I represent, have already
gotten their pink slips. I would think that is the case throughout the entire
Province. I do not know if that was known before this Budget came out, it
probably was. There is no real teeth to this news release, telling the Province
how the $1.7 million is going to be spent. There are a lot of generic words, but
no real focus on where it is going to be or what is really going to happen. I
guess the devil is in the details. I am sure we will find that out after awhile.
Like I was saying last night, I think it is very important that the people of
this Province should know what is not in this Budget. I am particularly
concerned about the education aspect. One of the announcements by the new
government was: government's objective to provide opportunity through the
expansion of distance education offerings to broaden the curriculum and
facilitate excellence in learning at the high school level. It is reflected
through an additional funding of $400,000 for the Center of Distance Learning.
Now that frightens me, because what does that really mean? Half of this flowery
expression and talk needs to be dissected. When you really look down through
this flowery expression that is put here for distance learning, you know, that
really means teacher cuts. That really means, instead of having a teacher in the
classroom, someone that you could have interaction with, our high school
students are going to spend more time looking into a computer monitor. That is
not what education reform was going to be all about.
This government is now proposing to consolidate school boards. They have not
made any mention - my understanding is that there was already an
article in The
Telegram which stated that they would give no commitment to plow back
savings from education right back into education. So that is pretty alarming.
Then they have a White Paper on post-secondary education. What they are
saying now is hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in post-secondary
education annually through sources, such as the provincial operating grants,
student aid, and the labour market development fund. They are going to spend
$250,000 of the taxpayers' money to find out what is going on in
post-secondary education. Well, I cannot help but say that is a study to study.
That is all it is, a study to study. Whenever the results are released on that
study you will not see any improvements. You will see what they call,
efficiencies. What that means is, there will probably be campuses closed of our
College of the North Atlantic institutions or maybe there will be
consolidations. I do not think you are going to see any further enhancements.
One thing I would like to ask the Minister of Education today - it is really
not clear how the new Student Loan Assistance Act is going to come into play,
because today I have already received a telephone call from a young student who
was trying to make a payment on her student loan. She went to the bank today to
make a payment on the new integrated student loan. My constituent said to me
that the bank would not take her money because they had no provision yet set up
for accepting payments for student loans.
Now, there was a big flurry in this House last week. The Government House
Leader and the Minister of Education were on high alert by the Premier, saying:
You must get this student loan act passed by - March 30 they said first. Then
there was a new deadline imposed, it was March 29. The members of the government
were running around like chickens with their heads cut off, frightened to death
they were not going to get that act passed in time so they could pad the Budget
and include that with the Budget deficit. Here it is, a week later, when young
people are trying to make a payment on their student loans and the banks are not
accepting the payments on their student loans. I wonder, is the Minister of
Education aware that is happening out there today, that there is no provision
with the banks to accept the student loan payments under the new integrated
system? I would like for the Minister of Education to stand in his place and
tell this House that he has notified the banks and they are aware of the
procedures, because it appears full well that there was nothing put in place
with the chartered banks. Students out there today are prevented from making
their normal student loan payments. There was no panic, but there is panic now
for students who are going to have to pay more interest because there is no
provision, currently, at any chartered bank in this Province for students to go
in and make their payments. I hope the Minister of Education will take up this
matter that I am raising today in this House and make sure that this is ironed
out tomorrow.
Still talking about education; this new government were the ones who stood
here last year and said that teachers should not come out of the system. Forget
about the Sparkes-Williams report they said, because we want to keep our
student-teacher ratio down. We want to make sure that they have the best
education they can get. They were complaining because we only took half of the
teachers out. Here it is this year, in their Budget they are going to take out
476 teachers over the next two years. What is that going to do for rural
Newfoundland, or do they care? Is that the reason why they are going to increase
distance education? Probably. If somebody now from Buchans, Ramea, Conche or
anywhere, Sandy Cove, Eastport, La Scie, if they want to do a specialized
program they are going to have to look into a monitor for it instead of having
the teacher in the classroom. Is that what it is all about?
No new school construction. Cancelled or deferred school construction
projects totalling $20 million. They include Herdman Collegiate, Corner Brook,
$9 million; extension to Leary's Brook, St. John's, $1 million; a new school
in L'Anse au Loup, $2 million; Mealy Mountain High School auditorium, $3
million, cancelled or deferred, whichever way you want to look at it; Mobile
High, $4.5 million. All of these very important projects that school children,
parents and teachers were looking forward to are either deferred or cancelled.
They have come out now with a decision to look at consolidating school
boards. They have not, in their announcement, given any indication as to where
those school boards will be. They have come out and actually said that they are
going to consolidate school boards, but they have not had the courtesy of
actually coming out and letting the general population know where those boards
are going to be located.
This is what they are saying: We currently have eleven existing school boards
and they are going to be merged into five in time for the 2004-2005 school year.
I can tell you, there is a lot of scrambling to be done there.
"Labrador Board - There will be no change to the district serviced by
the Labrador Board. This region currently has 16 schools and a projected
September enrolment of 4,466 students.
"Western Board - The Western Board will incorporate the Northern
Peninsula/ Labrador South Board (District 2), as well as the current Corner
Brook/Deer Lake/St. Barbe Board (District 3) and the Cormack Trail Board
(District 4). Eighty-two schools will come under the jurisdiction of this board,
with a projected September enrolment of 14,807."
They did not say where that school board was going to be. I guess it is
something like the announcement the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment made. She came out and made a statement that twenty human resources
and employment offices were going to close in Newfoundland and Labrador. You
have communities out there worried, and people saying: Who is going to be on the
chopping block? She left that out there dangling so people would worry
themselves sick about it, and never came out and said where this is going to
happen, which communities would be affected. Isn't that typical? Bring out bad
news, just bring out half the bad news so you can put people in agony for days
and weeks.
Then they are talking about the Central Board. "The Central Board will
include the current Baie Verte/Central/Connaigre School Board...," which is
District 5, which I represent, "...and the Lewisporte/Gander Board
(District 6), which serve 75 schools. In September, the enrolment for the new
district is projected to be 14,752 ."
Where is that board office going to be? Does anybody know that? Does anybody
have the courtesy to come out and make that statement? I do not think so. That
is unfair, to come out and deliver bad news like that and not say which
communities would be affected. We all know that these people who work for these
school boards have received their layoff slips and they all have to reapply for
their jobs. There has been no mention made as to where that board will be
located.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: Pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: You checked with the wrong people.
I guess the Member for Windsor-Springdale is telling this House - he shouted
out across the House today. Can you stand on your feet and assure me that will
not affect our current Board # 5 that is currently operating out of Grand
Falls-Windsor? Would you please stand and say that you support holding the
school office in Grand Falls-Windsor and that you will be doing your utmost to
make sure that remains where it is?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: Well, if you are as successful in this one as you were with
the cancer clinic, I would say it is not going to happen. You have to show the
public what you are made of.
"The Eastern Board will be formed from school districts 7 through 10
(Burin, Vista, Avalon West and Avalon East)." Now, can you imagine people
on the Burin Peninsula, where are they going to be looked after? I wonder, is
that Eastern Board going to be in Burin? I wonder, is it going to be in
Marystown or Grand Bank? Do you think that the people on the Avalon Peninsula
and St. John's are going to be looked after with a board from Grand Bank or
Burin? What do you think? Not likely.
"The new board will serve 127 schools with a projected September
enrolment of 44,756." Does anybody know where that board is going to be
located? Because it does not say in this news release. This is like giving out
half the bad news and letting people suffer for weeks and months, not knowing
what their future is.
You can come out and make these statements, and the people who work in these
boards all have families and they want to know what is going to happen in their
lives. Will they have to move? What are their jobs going to be like? Where will
the school board be located? What is involved? What is the point of coming out
and making such a blanket statement and not being specific to the point where
you are telling where the board is going to be located? Why would you have
community after community putting up their case as to why a board should be
located in a certain area? I think that is absolutely damaging. It is damaging
to the economy. It is damaging to municipal planning. It is pitting one
community against the other and it is highly unnecessary.
Now, if this is the new approach to economic development, taking from one
community and putting in another - of course, then again, I am not surprised. I
am definitely not surprised, because this new government is on record as being
totally opposed to school board elections, elected people, and they believe -
and they said so in this House of Assembly - that they think
education can be run right here from Confederation Building, from the
Department of Education. Their goal now is to make four mega-boards, and
probably a year or two down the road say, well that did not work; we are going
to do it all from Confederation Building.
That is not the right way to treat the people. The elected school boards did
good work and they are doing good work, and they did good work in school reform,
education reform. They handle all the local issues and they did the best job for
the people they represented. Now, these school boards are going to be squashed
and we are going to have a mega-board operating out of, I think, four locations
- five - four locations, plus there will be a Francophone School Board as well.
It is unfair when the Minister of Education would stand in his place, and also
the Minister of Finance, and talk about school board consolidation, give the
news and put people's lives on hold and not tell them where the locations are
going to be for the board office.
Now, I have not heard the Member for Baie Verte or the Member for Lewisporte
or the Member for Windsor- Springdale say anywhere, not in this House or
outside, that they are going to be putting forward a strong case for the
retention of School Board District # 5 within Grand Falls- Windsor. I have not
heard them say that, even though we have a new modern school building that
houses the school board office. We have every kind of a hookup connection for
computers and monitors. We can provide in-house training and conferences. We
have excellent parking and we are within two to two-and-a-half hours from every
school in our district. We have all these - we own the building outright. It is
totally new and totally renovated and we have a large space. I have not heard
any of these members that I mentioned stand up and defend why or make a case for
the retention of School Board District # 5, but I am hoping that in the days to
come the constituents themselves will put the pressure on and make those people
speak, because that is what they were elected to do.
I want to talk about post-secondary education, which is very near and dear to
some of the work that I have been doing lately. We had a government here that
came out and said that they were going to freeze tuition at MUN and the College
of the North Atlantic. That is a good thing to do, because we were on a mission
to ensure that our students had the best advantage that we could provide as a
provincial government, and that was to lower the tuition. We were very
successful in that and we ended up with the lowest tuition rate in Canada. There
is only one other province that has a lower rate and that would be Quebec, where
they give the residents of Quebec a break on the tuition. We treat all Canadians
who come to our university and also to the College of the North Atlantic equal.
Whatever rate we give to our Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we actually offer
to all Canadians. So, next to Quebec we have the lowest tuition rate across
Canada for our Memorial University.
I know that this new government was under considerable pressure to lower
tuition or freeze it. They opted to freeze under considerable pressure. I think
the students who were represented by the Canadian Federation of Students wanted
some assurance that this was not a one-shot deal. They wanted to look ahead for
the next two, three or four years where they knew they could have some
assurance, in planning their futures, that tuition rates would, indeed, be
frozen or even reduced further than they are today. To date I have not heard any
such statement from the Minister of Education and I am hoping that he will -
even though the first promise of this new government, I guess, that they made
after the election, was that they were going to give special precedence to the
youth of our Province. They did that by dismantling the Department of Youth,
Services and Post-Secondary Education. Now, I would hope that they haven't
closed the door and shut out the concerns of young people in our Province by
dismantling that department, and I hope that he will operate under the same
open-door policy that the previous government did. That is where all the gains
were made for students in this Province.
Any student who is now attending post-secondary education in this Province
will tell you that the biggest gains they made, in reducing student debt and
making student loans more accessible and affordable, were while the Liberal
administration were in power. We did all we could, as the provincial government,
in providing access to students to get a good education. I think that the
federal government has an obligation to look at those same concerns and look at
what they can do for students. I was expecting, in the federal budget that came
down, that we would see more grant-based funding for young people. We didn't
see that. We saw savings plans for future students.
I can tell you, I was highly surprised when I saw that the new budget came
down and it is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Blue Book promise in the
Budget was that this government would provide a tuition freeze and they would
ensure that the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University had money
to offset that freeze. Do you know what they did? They did the complete
opposite. They went and stated in their Budget: Memorial University, you go back
and see if you can find - not see if you can find, go find $2 million in
expenditures. Do you know what that means? It means that you are going to cut
your staff or you are going to cut out a program, or you are going to do
something. The tuition freeze I gave your students, too bad, you go back and
look for your $2 million now. So there is no commitment there on the part of
this government to offset tuition freeze. They did the same thing with the
College of the North Atlantic. They said: Go back and find $2 million, now that
I have frozen your tuition. That means the same thing for the College of the
North Atlantic; the very same thing. I guess that is really a turnaround, a
flip-flop, if I ever saw one.
I want to talk a bit about why it was so important to get that phoney report
through the House of Assembly. I took the time today to look up the request for
proposals when government decided that they would do an independent external
review of the Province's financial position. I looked up the conditions on the
Request for Proposals for the Special Review of the Financial Conditions of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They said: Terms of Reference. The review
which will not constitute an audit - they say that upfront - will serve to
ascertain the financial condition of the Province based upon a review of: for
the fiscal year, the Budget Estimates; Revenues, Expenditures and Commitments;
Revenue and Expenditure forecasts; and Economic Forecasts.
Then they go on to say for fiscal years 2004-05 to 2007-08. Now, this is what
they were looking for, ammunition. "The Process used to determine future
years' projections; The validity of the assumptions used in developing the
projections; and The reasonableness of the projected revenue and
expenditures." The review findings should focus on - this was the question
that was asked - "Whether or not the 2003-04 fiscal targets outlined in the
Budget remained realistic and attainable." Well, Mr. Speaker, they also
asked, "Whether or not, based on the assumptions (outlined below), the
current and capital account cash budget can be balanced by 2007-08" with
revenue growth.
Now, I think that is a key factor. They wanted to go out on a witch hunt and
have someone paint a picture of whether or not the current and capital account
budget could be balanced by 2007-08 with revenue growth. Revenue growth says a
lot of things. It says: What is this new government doing to promote revenue
growth? Do they have any confidence in their own projections? I do not think so,
because if they did they would not be bringing in the massive cuts on the people
of this Province that were just laid down in the current Budget.
A report on the initial findings of the review will be provided to the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board by the close of business
November 28, 2003, with a final report provided by December 15, 2003. Well, that
is a funny thing about that you know, we did not get that review when it was
supposed to be laid on the table for the Minister of Finance. He asked for an
extension.
This terms of reference; it is interesting here what the proposal must
include. I think this is key to the argument that I have been making over the
past few days. The proposal must include: the estimated number of hours to
complete the review, including the reports; the rate per hour; an estimate of
expenses; HST to be shown separately. I think 4(
e) is absolutely key: the name
of the person who will be responsible for the assignment and other key staff. At
that point the name of the person who will be responsible for the assignment and
other key staff. The name of the person responsible for the assignment was Mr.
Michael Gourley. I think what is very important here is that - it goes on to say
that the proposal must include the background and experience of the individual,
and of the firm. In particular, the public sector area. That was known from day
one on the Terms of Reference.
The Terms of Reference must include the background and experience of the
individual. Now, really, what was the experience and the background on the
individual who was assigned to prepare the external audit report for
PricewaterhouseCoopers? That is the question. This person was Michael Gourley.
Michael Gourley, a close friend and key advisor to former Premier Ernie Eves.
That was one of the key points on the Terms of Reference in choosing who would
be supplying the information on the external audit report, the background
experience of the individual. Michael Gourley, he left his job as Chief
Executive Officer of the Ontario Financing Authority on November 7, after a
little more that fifteen months into the job, with a payout of $917,000. Can you
imagine? A Liberal government source said the deal for a 2003 salary of $289,000
and a buyout of $628,000 was brokered by Eeves office when he was the Premier.
The authority is responsible for provincial borrowing and debt management.
Michael Gourley held several jobs during his first years in Ontario public
service. He worked for the Government of Ontario from 1973 to 1992. He also did
a TV stint with TV Ontario's mascot for Pokaroo.
I think what is the most important here, and the most telling of all, is the
fact that the Terms of Reference that the Department of Finance, the President
of Treasury Board, used clearly outlined that the proposal must include the name
of the person who will be responsible for the assignment, and the other key
staff. They should also know the background and the experience of the
individuals and the firm.
Who in this House, or outside this House, would believe that the report that
was presented by PricewaterhouseCoopers was objective, it was unbiased, it was
not painted, but really, in essence, it was fabricated? It was fabricated. They
used the exact information that came from the Department of Finance and Treasury
Board, and fabricated it to include two more unnecessary figures so the new
government could inflate the deficit and paint a much poorer financial position
of the Province than was necessary.
I think Moody's Bond Rating Agency, yesterday, said it all. Who would give
an A rating to a Province on the verge of bankruptcy? I think they clarified for
the people in the Province that what was said in this report done from
PricewaterhouseCoopers was totally fabrication, done for political maneuvering,
and that was it.
I think that is key. These two Terms of Reference - they have never been
mentioned before in this House - I think it is key because the proposal must
include the name of the person who will be responsible for the assignment, and
other key staff. That was well known to this new Tory government, who they were
employing. One of the other requests was that the background and experience of
the individual of the firm, in particular, in the public sector area. I wonder
if there was a background search done on Mr. Michael Gourley. Was there a
background search done on Mr. Michael Gourley? Did he have any connection to the
Tory Party in Ontario that were well known? I think so, and this has come to
light as recent as January 6, the day after the report came out, or maybe it was
January 5. Well, you know, I think these fabricated, these ballooned, these
inaccurate figures created a scenario in this Province where people, all of a
sudden, as of January 5, felt that they were into a situation that was unknown
to them several months back when they were enjoying a good economy in this
Province.
I think that any member in this House who would stand in their place and say
that, going within their districts all last summer and seeing people at their
work, housing going ahead, the economy doing so well, and tourism up, people had
a good feeling about the economy in this Province and their own situations in
general, but it started if off with the fabrication of the Province's deficit.
I think that is essentially what led to the strike that we are now experiencing
today, because the people who are there on strike feel like they have been
misled. They feel like they have been betrayed. They feel like - I have heard it
in the media. I have heard the strikers and the union leaders say in the media
that they were willing to share some of the pain in addressing the deficit. In
fact, they even agreed to a two-year wage freeze, but I do not think any of them
liked the fact that unilaterally the Premier came out on January 5 and said,
this is it - without any consultation with unions or their leaders, absolutely
none.
This fabrication has led to a monumental problem. I do not believe the
Premier of this Province is actually thinking how large it is and how it has
expanded. He has done more since January 5 to put our economy back ten years
ago, I guess. He has done more in the past two or three months to dismantle the
economy that has grown here in this Province than I think the cod moratorium of
1992 did to our Province.
I can tell you, when I look back over 1992 and I remember seeing fisherpeople
pounding on the door down at the Newfoundland Hotel when John Crosbie was the
Minister of Fisheries, I can see the same reaction today to the new government,
that people feel so lost and so betrayed and so misled by the incorrect
statements that have started right from January 5 until now. I think the sooner
that this Premier realizes what he is doing to the economy and to people's
lives, and moves on in a new direction, it will make a big difference to the
people of this Province.
When you look at the situation that is at hand today, and look at the fact
that - even the report that was done by Mr. Hugh Mackenzie, who is an economic
consultant and a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives, this is not the last job that Hugh Mackenzie is going to do.
MR. GRIMES: A much more stellar reputation than Mr. Gourley.
MS THISTLE: Oh yes, an impeccable reputation. This is not the last job
that Mr. Mackenzie will be doing. He has a lot on the line, his credentials. He
has done work for municipalities and governments all over this country.
Do you know what Mr. Hugh Mackenzie said? He said that Newfoundland and
Labrador does indeed face a fiscal problem over the next few years, although by
no means as significant as that of the forecast in the PricewaterhouseCoopers
report. Now, he said that. He also said, and I think it is important for the
record: Neither public spending nor public sector employees' compensation can
legitimately be said to have caused the Province's current fiscal problems.
I think that is very important. He said it was not the public sector spending
and it was not the public sector wages that caused this problem. He said: The
primary cause of Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal problems is a weakness in
the Province's revenue base. A revised, more realistic forecast of revenue and
expenditure shows a persistent cash deficit of between $275 million and $300
million a year.
We have said that all along. We have a shortfall upwards to $300 million a
year.
He said: While this reveals a structural revenue shortfall, it is far less
than the $714 million forecast for 2007 by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
That is true, absolutely true. You will never hear the Finance Minister talk
about accrual deficits in the future again, because the Finance Minister of
today has taken accrual deficits out of his vocabulary. He does not want to talk
about accrual deficits any more. He does not want to talk about them.
He went on to say - Mr. Hugh Mackenzie - that the problem emerged in the
Province. Now, I would be the first to say that is the real reason why we have a
cash deficit today. That is the real reason, and I think anyone who is in the
financial know at all would say that is exactly what happened. That did not
happen by reckless spending, and it did not happen by giving the public sector
employees a raise.
He went on to say: This problem was not caused by public sector employees'
compensation increases, and imposing - this is very important. He has dealt with
many of these situations in the past and he said: Imposing the wage freezes
advocated by both the PricewaterhouseCoopers report and the Premier cannot solve
it.
He goes on to say that, by imposing a wage freeze on our public sector
employees and also by - this was seen as the answer by PricewaterhouseCoopers
and also the Premier - doing away with salary increases and imposing a wage
freeze was the answer to all our ills, but that is not the answer as recommended
and analyzed by Mr. Hugh Mackenzie.
He said: There can be no long-term answer to the fiscal questions facing
Newfoundland and Labrador without addressing declining federal equalization
payments and the related clawback of oil industry revenue inherent in current
fiscal arrangements.
I have said this a few time in the past few days, that you are never going to
hear our new Finance Minister talk about accrual budgeting again. Last year,
2003-2004, was our first year into accrual budgeting. It had been recommended by
the Auditor General for many years, and last year was the first year that we
decided to go with that method. Our new Finance Minister and President of
Treasury Board knows full well, he is never going to pay off the long-term debt.
We have had cash deficits in this Province for fifty-two years. We have had cash
deficits for fifty-two years. We have had a couple of years when we had a
balanced budget, but they have been rare. Saying that we are going to eliminate
a cash deficit in the next four years, that is attainable. That is definitely
attainable. We are starting out this year with a cash deficit of $362 million.
In four years' time, the new government says, they are going to eliminate
that. That is possible. That is possible. In fact, we had a plan ourselves to
eliminate that same cash deficit in fours years' time. So, they are not going
to be doing anything marvelous or anything outstanding by eliminating the cash
deficit in the next four years. What they are not telling the people - and this
is how they got elected - is that they are going to eliminate the long-term
debt. They are not going to eliminate that long-term debt. Right now, it is
standing at $10 billion. Ten billion dollars. Now, that represents a lot of
things, a lot of capital work over the years and a lot of unfunded pension
liability that has not been paid - although, as a member of the former
government, we made a good start. In fact, there is almost $1 billion extra gone
into the unfunded liability since 1998 by a move by the government of which I
was a part. It was Brian Tobin who made the first start on making a payment on
unfunded pension liabilities.
It says: Although budget planning in Newfoundland and Labrador has
traditionally focused on the cash balance, the report pays particular attention
to a second definition of the deficit, based on accounting on an accrual basis.
You will never hear much talk about accrual accounting. You will never hear
much talk about it in the future. I think, intentionally, this new government
has confused and muddied the waters because most people cannot get their heads
around financial matters. They will never talk about accrual accounting again.
What they will focus on is eliminating the cash deficit in four years. That is
attainable, and that is a plan that we had.
How did we get a cash deficit? It was interesting; this morning I was looking
at some of the line of debate. The current Finance Minister, when he was
Opposition critic for Finance, stood on his feet this time last year and spent
hours and hours and hours and he was condemning the government of the day -
which I was a part of - for not spending more. He talked hours upon end about
the lineups for cardiac surgery. He talked about dialysis. He talked about
bringing in new drugs. He talked about the need for new school construction. He
wanted more money into highway work. He wanted more money into job creation. He
felt that there should be more money spent for tourism; the Colony of Avalon was
one of the recipients last year. He also felt that education was a high priority
and more money should be spent in keeping more teachers in the classroom.
It is very interesting the kind of flip-flop of this current Minister of
Finance who criticized, I guess, for twelve for fourteen years, that government
was not spending enough, and the first thing he did when he became the Finance
Minister was put the brakes on and sock it to the people. The poor people of the
Province are going to have to pay the burden for trying to get the cash deficits
cleaned up in the next four years.
It is interesting that the charges that have been levied on the people in
last week's Budget - it is only a week ago and it sounds like it was years
ago. I guess the news has been so bad that it is entrenched in all of us now;
how bad this Budget is.
I was thinking last night, as I was standing here, about the fees that are
now going to be charged - well, they are already in effect. April 1 the fees
started. It was a bit of a joke almost, in recent years, when they talked about
gravel pit campers. There was a big move by the previous government, of which I
was a part, to do away with gravel pit camping. In fact, Buddy Wasisname and the
Other Fellers had a song about gravel pit camping. In fact, there were even
mounds of clay put up in front of the gravel pits so people in the Province
could not access the gravel pits, and we could do away with gravel pit camping.
It was rather unsightly. There was always the problem: Where is the water and
sewage going? Was there sink water left on top of the ground, was there garbage
left there or was there food. You know, were wild animals attracted these sites?
For health and safety reasons the previous administration was trying to do away
with gravel pit camping.
All of the sudden, gravel pit camping is going to take on a new meaning. We
were supposed to encourage people to spend time in our provincial parks where we
had a wonderful camping experience on a family outing, but instead of
encouraging people now to use our provincial parks we are encouraging gravel pit
camping. For unserviced camping for a night the rates have gone from nine to ten
dollars. Unserviced camping weekly has gone from fifty-seven to sixty dollars. I
think the best one of all - and I don't know who was thinking about this -
anyone who is not camping and they want to take a shower are going to have to
pay five dollars. That is almost hilarious. I can hardly stand in my place here
in this House and talk about this fee without grinning because it is so silly,
it is so simple - silly, I mean. Yes, it is simple too along with that.
Anyone who was looking at this fee - in other words, if you wanted a shower
and you were a visitor and you weren't camping, is there going to be someone
on the bathroom door with a stamp saying: Are you a visitor or are you a camper,
because if you are not a camper you have to pay five dollars before you go in
and get a wash. That is what you have to do. I am sure that Buddy Wasisname and
the Other Fellers will have a lovely song made up about this one. Make no wonder
that we are the laughing stock of the whole country when you see our own
provincial government making up a fee that says you got to have a stamp on your
hand when you go through the provincial park now. When you get checked in: Are
you a visitor or are you camping? Because if you are a visitor and you want to
take a shower it is going to cost you $5. This is hilarious, absolutely
hilarious! You would be saying, if you are going to have any friends visiting:
Take a cake of soap and wash yourself in the pond before you go to the park.
This is hilarious! I cannot help but laugh.
Anyway, I will move on to something that is not quite so funny. Now they are
going to have every fee here - even for services that are performed which were
not charged in the past, they will be charged in the future. For instance, if
you have a recreational boathouse and a wharf, that is going to go up from $10
to $25.
I cannot understand this one, a home gardening licence is going to go up from
$10 to $25. Now there is a community plot here in St. John's where they are
encouraging community gardening; the MacMoran Centre, I think it was. I am not
as familiar with St. John's as I would be in my own district, but I remember
seeing a show, a TV clip, that the MacMoran Centre here in St. John's Centre
were promoting community gardening.
AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's North.
MS THISTLE: Okay, I am sorry about that. I do not know St. John's as
well as I should.
The MacMoran Centre were promoting community gardening for low income
families and encouraging people to grow some of their vegetables, that way they
would have fresh vegetables and, of course, more money in their pockets. I do
not know if that applies to this or not, but there is a home gardening licence
from $10 to $25. What kind of people are you going to be affecting by putting an
increase in a fee like that? It would definitely be a low income earner who are
trying their best to be self-sufficient. So I think that one should be reviewed
for sure.
Look at this. Someone who buys a new car and is going probably from their
house to a garage or something, or maybe they live out of town, they have to buy
an in-transit permit, and that goes from $11 to $15. Then you have a book of
certificates for light vehicles going from $10 to $30.
Driver examinations for a road test; young people, or even elderly people,
who need to be rechecked to see if they are able to drive and are healthy and
able to deal with highway situations. Road tests are going to increase from $50
to $60. Of course, if you fail the first one - that is what it looks like to me,
road test reassessments. Right now there is no charge, and that fee is going to
be $100.
I am concerned about that one in particular because this new government were
supposed to bring in major changes to personal insurance in this Province. It
has not been done. We all know that we are paying high insurance rates, as much
as 50 per cent more than we were paying last year. For a senior citizen, in
fact, who may need to write a road test or have a reassessment regarding the
capability of a senior or an elderly person or a young person behind the wheel,
there was never any charge for that particular test, for driver examination, and
that is going from zero to $100. I would not mind if the Minister of Government
Services would tell us what that includes. Then, of course, a beginners permit,
someone sixteen who is now going to be able to drive with the accompaniment of a
licenced driver, that permit is now going to increase from $30 to $40.
There was a good question asked by a caller last night. I was leaving the
building here and on my way home I heard a caller ask a question about ambulance
usage. They talked about the $115 increase. A patient now, if they order an
ambulance, it will go from $75 to $115. They wanted to know who would actually
be receiving that $115. Would it be the ambulance operator or the government
itself? I do know if there have been changes to that policy but I would like to
hear it from the Minister of Government Services.
Then there is acute care, semi-private accommodations: $60 to $85 a day. I
mean that is $25 a day. That is a sharp increase. Private accommodations for
those who have critical illnesses and need privacy, that would go from $75 a day
to $100 a day.
Now look at this: In-patient rate for uninsured agencies reciprocal billing
rate plus 15 per cent. Now that is going to reciprocal billing rate plus 20 per
cent. In-patient rate for non-Canadians; well I do not think that will make much
difference to the people in this Province.
Fingerprinting for the RNC is going up from $25 to $50. I guess anyone who is
taken into custody now and they have to be fingerprinted, that fee is going from
$25 to $50. How about if your car is towed away? It is going from $45 to $100. I
think the people in St. John's just won their battle for on-street parking. I
cannot remember what street it was, it might have been Craig Miller Avenue. It
was somewhere there in the centre of St. John's. Anyway, towing storage for
the RNC is going from $45 to $100. I mean it has already gone, that was April 1.
Accident records has gone from $50 to $75.
If you want a Commissioner for Oaths to swear to an affidavit, that is going
to go from $25 to $50. I can remember when people would do that, Commissioner
for Oaths, for $2. Now that particular fee has gone from $25 to $50.
I know the republic have increased their fees - can you imagine? - from $250
to $500. So anyone wanting some legal work done and going to a new republic, the
fee is exactly double. I mean that is highway robbery. No gradual increase, but
an increase of 100 per cent.
Then there is the Sheriffs's Office. Anyone who wants to do a remote
search, that has gone from $25 to $35. Then there is someone who is doing a
search in the office, that has gone from $50 to $100. My goodness, we have a
series of 150 brand new fees for the people of the Province. Now I do not know
if that is what the people of the Province voted for; I do not think so. I do
not think that they did.
What a difference in last year's Budget and this year's Budget. Last year
we, as the former administration, said: The cash deficit for government
departments and its funding agencies for the fiscal year 2003-04 is forecast to
be $212 million. The total borrowing requirements - including borrowings for
school construction, The Rooms, and Municipal Capital Works - is forecast to be
$286 million. Do you know the good part about all of that? Our economy was so
strong last year that indeed we had an increase of $100 million in revenue
generated last year. Now, that says a lot. People had a lot of confidence last
year and in previous years in our economy, but I think that is what is lacking
in this Budget that the Minister of Finance brought down last week at this time.
That is what is lacking. There is no confidence shown in growing the economy in
the future. That is why you have a dismal set of figures that they have
fabricated and they are using to their advantage at this particular moment in
painting a dull picture, and I think that is going to backfire on them. I think
that, by creating such a negative feeling around this Province, business will
dry up and consumer confidence will dry up, and I think it will explode in their
faces because they are creating the wrong kind of a feeling in this Province.
These are some of the good things that were happening this time last year. I
told you just a few minutes ago that cash deficits have been around in fifty-two
of the past fifty-five years since Confederation. Now, it is true that we do
have a cash deficit, and everyone is aware of it, but we do not have the deficit
that has been reported by the new government. We do not have that ballooning
deficit that has been fabricated for their own means. We do not have that
ballooning deficit, and that was demonstrated by myself this afternoon when I
talked about the differences in the reports by Mr. Hugh Mackenzie and Mr.
Michael Gourley from PricewaterhouseCoopers who painted such an ill picture that
was nothing but innuendo and complete fabrication.
This time last year, there was actually $9 million announced for a Student
Investment and Opportunities Corporation allocated for a new Youth Opportunities
Newfoundland and Labrador program to assist in keeping post-secondary students
and graduates in our Province. Now, can anybody from the other side of the House
stand up and tell me: Was there anything announced in this Budget to assist in
keeping post-secondary s