Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 19 April 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 18)
2004-04-19
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 19, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 18
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
The Speaker would like to rule on a point of order raised by the Government
House Leader on April 14. On Wednesday, April 14, the Government House Leader
raised a point of order concerning the use of expressions, Pinocchio and modern
day Pinocchio, in reference to members of the House. The Chair has reviewed the
transcript of Wednesday's proceedings and found that these comments are not
recorded in Hansard. However, the comments were audible and the Chair did hear
them. Having consulted with our counterparts in other jurisdictions, we were
unable to identify a jurisdiction in which this expression was used, although
others with similar meanings were used.
As we stated in an earlier ruling, the codification of parliamentary language
or unparliamentary language is no longer considered useful. Expressions which
might be considered lighthearted or humourous in one context can take on a
different meaning in another. In this instance the Chair is of the opinion that
the expressions, Pinocchio and modern day Pinocchio, are somewhat borderline and
therefore ask all hon. members to bear this in mind and refrain from using
expressions which might be provocative or tend to cause disorder and therefore
disrupt the flow of debate.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: We have statements today by the hon. Member for Burgeo &
Lapoile, the hon. Member for St. John's Centre, and the hon. Member for
Bellevue.
The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was very pleased yesterday to host a televison telethon at Burgeo, in my
District of Burgeo & Lapoile. The purpose of the telethon was to raise funds
to acquire a twelve-passenger bus with wheelchair capability to be used by the
seniors of Burgeo, both at the Calder Health Care Centre and those living in
private residences.
The total cost of the new bus was $82,000 and, I am pleased to say, as a
result of the efforts of the Burgeo Lions Club, the Lions International, the
Resident Family Committee and thousands of supportive constituents this goal was
realized.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: It is amazing how Newfoundlanders and Labradorians come
together to support each other in worthwhile causes. The pledges came from all
across this Province and, indeed, all across Canada. The response was fantastic
and everyone chipped in to do their part.
The bus will be used so our seniors can take
part in the many community
activities which occur, such as visiting the local Sand Banks Park and other
social and recreational activities. It is quite clear that just because you get
older you need not be a shut-in and the seniors of Burgeo will have a more
complete and fuller lifestyle because of this initiative.
Hats off to all those who helped out in this most worthwhile cause!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Volunteer
Week, a special time set aside to honour people who donate their time and energy
to their fellow citizens. This year, Volunteer Week is being recognized from
April 18-24, and the theme chosen is: Volunteers Grow Community.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have over 4,300 voluntary community-based
organizations and 138,000 volunteers. These people give of their time, effort
and knowledge to many programs, services and projects that make a significant,
positive impact on the quality of life for their fellow citizens.
Over 31 per cent of our residents age fifteen and up, have volunteered their
time and skills. On average, they give up 206 hours every year in their
volunteer activities.
Newfoundland and Labrador leads the nation with the highest median
participation rate by volunteers, at ninety-six hours. The Canadian median is
seventy-eight hours.
Mr. Speaker, we are blessed to have these volunteers in our community, and I
ask each and everyone of us to take the time to say thank you to these
volunteers as we encounter them during the coming week.
To the sports coach, the Girl Guide leader, the literacy tutor, the person
helping at the food bank and all the other 138,000 volunteers in this Province,
I offer you my personal thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to the
North Atlantic Refinery for celebrating ten years of successful operations in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Since taking ownership of the refinery on August 15, 1994, the company has
invested in excess of $400 million to make their facility safer, cleaner, and
more efficient. Over the past ten years they have cut emissions by 80 per cent
and increased their safety performance threefold.
The refinery in Come By Chance, in the District of Bellevue, employs over 700
people and the refinery contributes more than $140 million a year to the
provincial economy.
North Atlantic Refinery, fuel exports top $1 billion annually, they operate
eight home-heat locations and eighty gasoline outlets, a true Newfoundland and
Labrador success story.
I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating this
Newfoundland and Labrador business and wish them much more success in the
future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is day nineteen of the largest strike in the Province's
history, and the people of the Province continue to suffer because we have a
Premier and a minister who have no idea how to conclude a collective agreement.
Mr. Speaker, have the Premier and the President of Treasury Board bungled
these negotiations to a point where they cannot possibly be saved, or was this
prolonged strike part of a plan by the Premier and his government all along?
Let me ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Was this part of a master plan in the
new approach of government to send a message to the unions, or is it just that
your total ineptitude in collective bargaining is shining through? Which is it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we were given a mandate by the people of this Province to try
and clean up the fiscal mess that had been left to us by the previous
Administration. That was the mandate that we were given on October 21, and that
is the mandate that we will fulfill. We were not responsible for creating this
problem but we do have to try to fix it, and we will do everything in our power
to try and fix it.
With regard to the negotiations, myself and the minister, in consultation
with our Cabinet and our caucus, had made a fair proposal on March 31. We felt
we made a proposal to the members of the union, to the leadership of the union,
that was a very good proposal, and in our opinion it was a stretch proposal
given the fiscal situation that we are in, in our Province.
[Comments from the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has to remind people who are visitors in the gallery that
regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with what it being said on
the floor of the House, the protocol says that visitors are not to engage in any
approval or disapproval whatsoever. We welcome you to the proceedings, this is
the people's House, but again we ask you not to engage in any commentary or
any expression that might be seen as participating in the dialogue.
The hon. the Premier, a moment to conclude your comments.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, since the negotiations have started, from a concession
perspective, we have taken sick leave for current employees off the table, we
have taken pension indexing off the table, and we have taken severance off the
table. Over the course of this weekend, job evaluation was satisfactorily agreed
to between both parties, so that, in fact, had been removed on a package basis.
So, we have done virtually everything we can. As well, outstanding issues with
regard to the pension were also taken. We are now down to a situation where we
are left with sick leave for future employees, salary, and the Warren Report.
What we have found during the course of the discussions and negotiations over
the weekend, through the minister and representatives from the union, we found
that as we went back to the table they were, in fact, increasing the offer. The
last offer that we had from the union was 1.5 per cent, 1.5 per cent, 3 per cent
and 3 per cent.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On April 17, they came back with a written proposal that was 1.5 per cent,
1.5 per cent, 4 per cent and 4 per cent. When they came back again on April 18,
we had a further increase and they, in fact, came back and they were looking for
a signing bonus; a signing bonus of approximately $25 million. As well, they
wanted a CPI increase which was $66 million on an annual basis. Unfortunately,
that is just not affordable. It is not something we can even entertain. It is
just not even there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think people will judge for themselves. To me, it does not sound much like
a Premier who is trying to get a settlement. It sounds like somebody still
trying to provoke confrontation.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday past, the President of Treasury Board agreed to a
media blackout and yet, throughout the whole weekend, the people of the Province
were subjected to new ads from the government, aired on radio, television and in
newspapers all over the Province. Government, as we understand it, and the
Premier just confirmed, is still seeking and insisting upon concessions at the
bargaining table, and the Premier has decided, for some reason, not to
participate in the talks personally. It is not worth his attention, I guess, is
the view.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier: Does he have any real interest in ending
this strike at all, or is he going to continue his right-wing approach to
negotiations and sit back and see the services for the people of the Province
continue to deteriorate while they stumble and bumble their way through?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have done everything we can to try and end this strike. As a
matter of fact, the reason that we returned to the table last week, when we had
no response from the union for five-and-a-half days, was because the minister
actually contacted the union leadership and indicated that we, in fact, wanted
to return to the table, which we did. We then entered into negotiations
throughout the weekend. We made progress throughout the weekend. We have done
everything possible to try and reach an agreement. We want to get our public
sector employees off the streets. We want to get them back to work. They chose
to strike. They have a right to strike. They have every right to strike. That is
their right, and we respect that right. All we can do is try and reach an
agreement, and we have done everything we can, but when the union leadership
continues to move higher and higher in their demands, rather than working
towards an agreement, then there is nothing we can do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Quite a noticeable change in a couple of weeks from a Premier who was going
to visit the picket lines and do the negotiation himself, on the side of the
street, and now, when there is a media blackout, will not even go to the talks
and will not participate. That is how important it is now.
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious to anyone who is following this that we are
dealing with a Premier who has a fundamental right-wing conservative philosophy
that would make the former Mike Harris government of Ontario pale by comparison.
We continuously hear the call that we must cut services, freeze wages and
achieve concessions. In the meantime, last week we saw a political decision to
spend an additional $1.7 million unnecessarily for a ferry to sail to Lewisporte
for no good reason other than pure raw politics.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Premier's right-wing philosophy has caused
this strike. Let me ask the Premier: Has his fundamental belief - because he is
so intent on having these concessions - always been that the contracts of public
sector workers should be stripped no matter what, or is this just something that
he thought up in the last few weeks?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware of the concessions
that we have, in fact, taken off the table. I can only repeat them again. We
have taken sick leave off the table for current employees; we have taken pension
indexing off the table; we have taken severance off the table; we have reached
agreement with the union over the weekend on job evaluation; and have reached
agreement on pensions. All of these matters have come off the table. We are
working towards an agreement. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I did not
serve in the Wells' Cabinet, which was very much a right-wing Cabinet. We did
not roll back wages. We did not enter into wage freezes at that particular point
in time.
You have a record that you have to live with, as Leader of the Opposition.
Don't stand there and pontificate to me, and be self-righteous and
hypocritical.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The record will show, for those who want to live in the past, that the
current Premier was a great supporter - financially and otherwise - of Clyde
Wells -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. GRIMES: - and said that he was doing the right things.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
Members know the general rules of asking questions, there should be no
preamble or a very short
preamble for a supplementary, and I would ask the
member now if he would get to his question.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clearer by the day that this government has no
credibility, and it is quite apparent they are not able to negotiate a
settlement to this strike by leaving demands for concessions still on the table
after nineteen days.
Is the Premier willing to do something, and try something maybe a little more
constructive, because it is obvious they cannot negotiate a settlement
themselves, and sent the outstanding, remaining issues to binding arbitration so
we can get a fair and timely settlement, get the services restored for the
people of the Province and get the workers back to work where they really want
to be.
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.
My answer to that is the same answer that their government had to give to the
very same question, that they were elected to discharge the responsibilities of
the Province and to be able to make decisions on behalf of the taxpayers in
light of our fiscal ability; the very same thing.
It is kind of ironic, Mr. Speaker, that now the question is coming from that
side of the House and the answer he is expecting is the same answer that it was
when they had the choice to make that decision.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Knowing that they are unable to negotiate an agreed to settlement, knowing
that they would absolutely take the adamant approach that was just given, that
the answer is no to binding arbitration, means that the plan all along was to
get to a point where a crisis would develop and you could legislate the workers
back to work.
Would the Premier answer today, on day nineteen, whether or not there have
been any discussions in the Cabinet, and/or any instructions, to start drafting
back-to-work legislation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no instructions to draft back-to-work
legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have learned enough about the Premier to be careful of the
words he says. I notice he said no instructions. That means there has been lots
of discussion, because that was the other part of the question.
Mr. Speaker, again I ask the Premier: Will the legislation that is being
discussed, even though they haven't given the word yet to actually write it
down, will the legislation that is being discussed just be legislation to send
workers back to work for the health and safety of the people in their care, in
the Province, or will the right-wing agenda really come forward in flying
colours and will we see a wage increase in the legislation that is less than
what is talked about at the bargaining table? Will we, in the legislation that
he admits is being discussed, see concessions?
I would bet, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier probably will not stand and answer
that question because the concessions are still there. Are they in the
legislation that is being discussed? That is the 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.
I can tell the Leader of the Opposition quite clearly that there has been no
discussion on any options to do with any legislation or drafting of legislation
in Cabinet or otherwise as to what specifics or anything because it has not
occurred, I say to him. It absolutely, Mr. Speaker, did not occur. We have not
entertained it. We just hope that the union will come back with a reasonable
offer that we can accept on behalf of the people of this Province.
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.
My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
We have heard of the serious problems developing in the long-term care
system. People are not receiving adequate care. Some residents have not been
taken out of their bed in the past nineteen days. They are not receiving baths.
Meals are not being received on time. There are reports that some seniors,
Minister, who normally go to the washroom on their own are now wearing disposal
diapers. Minister, to you, is this a system that is coping?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We do have ongoing discussions on a daily basis with all of the health care
boards, including those responsible for long-term care. They are providing
emergency and urgent services. There is a strain in the system because we are at
day nineteen, and we remain hopeful that there will be an early resolution to
this labour dispute.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright- L'anse
au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the early resolution is in the minister's
domain. I do not know if the minister visited any of these long-term care
institutions or talked to any of the people on the picket lines or the
front-line workers but, Mr. Speaker, I am receiving reports right now that
people without training or experience in the health care field are being
assigned to look after patients in long-term care facilities
Will the minister confirm that this is indeed the case and that designated
essential workers, who are already under extreme stress, are now being asked to
train these people?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the long-term care facilities, yes, care is being provided by essential
workers and also by management staff. With regard to the hon. member's
question regarding what is happening in the health care facilities, yes, I am
receiving numerous calls from people in the health care facility and that is all
I have to say.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, cancelled appointments, delayed surgeries, huge
waiting lists, that will be the legacy of this government when the strike is
over, I say to the minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: The health care system will be struggling with backlogs for
months to come, and she knows that will be the case.
Can you, Minister, tell this House exactly how many appointments have been
cancelled, how may surgeries are delayed, how much time it will take to deal
with the backlog, or do you simply have no idea of the mess that you and your
government have created in health care in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I have indicated earlier, we have ongoing discussions with the boards on a
daily basis with regard to the current situation. Yes, there are backlogs in the
system, as you would expect during the times of a labour dispute.
At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with urgent and emergency
cases, and other more routine cases are not being acted upon.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is for the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
Minister, the annual spring runoff is causing serious damage to the roads
across the Province. Roads on the Burin Peninsula are in worse shape than they
have been in decades. Some roads are passable only to one-way traffic, and if
repairs are not done immediately they will not be passable at all. Minister, in
one area a three-foot deep hole in the road is raising concerns over the safety
of a bridge nearby. Will the minister give assurance to the people of the
Province that necessary repairs to these roads will be carried out immediately?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
We are doing the best we can under the present circumstances to take care of
emergency situations. We are aware of the situation on the Burin Peninsula and
other parts of the Province. Some of the washouts on the Burin Peninsula are
fairly extensive and we will have to call tenders to have the problems corrected
anyway. We are in the process, Mr. Speaker, of trying to get the tender
documents prepared and so on, as we speak.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: I guess, Minister, for some people they will have to wait
probably three of four months before the roads are repaired when the minister
has to go to tender.
Minister, over the weekend the snow in different parts of the Province made
driving conditions extremely dangerous. As the snow melted there were no highway
crews clearing or salting the roads. This caused black ice on the highways.
Accidents were reported at an alarming rate and road safety was a factor to
drivers and police officers alike. Minister, these severe road conditions are a
recipe for a serious accident to happen and could possibly involve the loss of
lives. Will the minister tell the people of the Province what steps his
department will take to control of this serious situation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the hon. member's
preamble; in terms of calling tenders,
there is only a certain amount of job size that our own crews - even if there
wasn't a work stoppage - can take care of. If it gets beyond that we do, in
fact, have to call tenders. I say to the hon. gentleman, that is in process now.
In terms of snow clearing and ice control over this past weekend; yes, I say
to my hon. friend, there has been difficulty in a number of places in the
Province. We do have an essential service agreement with the union. In most
places that agreement worked very well. However, there were places where we had
difficulty getting equipment out of our depots and onto the roads because of
picket line action, but we have managed to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. RIDEOUT: That is a fact, Mr. Speaker, some places we did have to have
help to have flyers, spreaders, salters and sanders. There is a strike, and we
understand that, but there is an essential services agreement which allows some
of our people to do some of that work and over time, during the course of the
weekend, I think most of it got done, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier who said, a few moments ago, that the
government is doing everything that it can to end the strike. The
PricewaterhouseCoopers report, commissioned by this government, states that
inflation over the next four years will be in excess of 8.4 per cent. Mr.
Speaker, this government's most recent wage offer over the weekend to the
public sector workers is 5 per cent. Now, if the government is interested in
ending this strike, why are they, effectively, offering a wage rollback of 3.5
per cent to public sector workers over the next four years?
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.
There were two offers put to us on March 31. One offer was for a five-year -
and we offered at that time, on March 31 with -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: We offered 8 per cent over that period - was one of our
initial offers. The most recent - when they decided they only wanted a four-year
contract, not a five-year contract, we put an offer to them of zero, zero, 2 per
cent and 3 per cent. The rate of inflation, based on projections, can vary.
There are always revisions occurring, of course, and we do look at it. If you
want to compare the rate of inflation, we can go back two, three, four, five
years and we can look at the average which would have been higher than the rate
of inflation in many instances, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, to the Premier. Having saved millions of dollars thus far in the
nineteen-day public sector strike, why is this government refusing to even
consider a signing bonus, when effectively, could put some of that money into
the hands of workers now without adding to their annual rate of pay?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A signing bonus of $25 million is very expensive, I might add. For anybody
making $40,000 a year, it would be over 3 per cent. Somebody making $30,000 a
year, it would be over 4 per cent in year one. Between -
[Comments from the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind visitors to the gallery that I am reluctant to have the galleries
cleared at this stage in the proceedings, however if we continue to have
interruptions -
[Comments from the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: If interruptions continue, then the Speaker has no choice
but to ask visitors to respect the integrity of the House. We do not want you to
engage in dialogue back and forth. Long-standing precedents in this House is
that visitors to the gallery are welcome to be there, however, they cannot
participate in debate that occurs on the floor. The Minister of Finance was
asked a question. He was in the process of responding. I am not sure whether or
not - he has a short commentary to clue up.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying that if you want to look at different scenarios of what the
member asked there -
AN HON. MEMBER: That is what negotiations are all about.
MR. SULLIVAN: It was $25 million. I could use examples. For example, if
it was at $40,000, it would be over 3 per cent; at $30,000 it would be over 4
per cent. If it is at $20,000 it would amount to a significant -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister now to complete his answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: It depends on what the salary level is. It would have
varied anywhere from 3 per cent to 4 per cent, and higher in some cases, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I ask the Premier if he really wants to settle this dispute, why did
he and his government reject each of the three or four proposals put forth by
the union showing flexibility and ingenuity in trying to deal with government's
concern about sick leave? Why did he reject all of them instead of trying to
find a solution to this strike, which the people of this Province want?
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.
There were certain options put there. One was to reduce it to eighteen days
and add 3 per cent on wages; when the average usage of sick leave was a little
over sixteen, to put it from twenty-four to eighteen. It would not have made -
it would have cost us -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the minister. I ask the minister now to complete his
answer to the question.
MR. SPEAKER: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
If they ask questions and they do not want an answer I will gladly send it
over in writing. I will respond to it, if they do not want to hear it in the
House. I have answered the question. I will gladly answer any question they
have, truthfully and honestly and give them the figures.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, when questioned last week about the safety of
our roads, the Minister of Government Services told us, in the House, not to
worry. Well, Mr. Speaker, a critical part of highway safety is the highway
safety officers who enforce highway regulations and inspect transport trucks and
other heavy vehicles.
I ask the minister: How many of these highway enforcement officers are still
working? Can we be sure that she is looking after the safety of our travelling
public?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for his question. We have an essential agreement with
the union people and we do have some of our inspectors on staff. We are now
monitoring the situation and we are doing what we can in a strike situation in
this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour
Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about public safety here, and
the government has no idea what is going on in this Province. There are only
three out of fifteen highway enforcement officers out there working and there
are numerous reports all over the Province about overloaded vehicles. It is my
understanding there are only three out of thirty-one people working at weigh
scales.
Can the minister tell us how many transport trucks and heavy vehicles are
being inspected with only three weigh scale operators, how many unsafe vehicles
are going unchecked, or is she even concerned about the safety of the public?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Thank you for your question, hon. member.
The essential service agreement is in place and we are carrying out our
duties in highway safety. In lieu of the strike that is here in this Province,
we are not up to full standard, but we are concerned about the safety issues in
this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour
Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the cookie cutter reply is not helping the
situation on our highways, I can assure you that.
We are talking about public safety, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the minister: Is
she aware that no restaurant inspections are being done in this Province because
only five out of twenty-nine environmental health officers are out there in the
Province working?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to reply to the hon. member's question. We again have
inspectors with essential services and we are doing, not the full routine
because we do indeed have a labour dispute in this Province, but we are carrying
out the necessary inspections and we are very concerned for our safety's
effort.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Education.
The minister should know that several school districts in our Province
control busing, and as a result they are not on the job today. As a result of
this, one school in my district today had enrollment down by 30 per cent, as a
result of not being able to get to school. That is happening in a number of
districts around the Province.
I ask the minister: Is he concerned about the impact that this strike is
having on these students, especially in light of the fact that classes are going
on as normal for the rest of the students?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for his question and I say to the hon. member, yes,
we are concerned. These are not easy times, these are difficult times, and we
all have to work to ensure that these problems, as the member has indicated, are
minimalized.
I say to the hon. member, that the disruptions in our schools throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador today are minimal. We are working closely, I say to
the hon. member, with school boards to ensure that disruptions are minimal. Many
parents, I say to the hon. member -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Many parents in those school districts where we have
busing circumstances as have been described, are carpooling, and we are all
working to try to minimize the situation, Mr. Speaker, as best as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Time for one quick supplementary.
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They may be minimal here in St. John's but, I will tell you, they are not
minimal in my district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you about minimal. As we speak, 650
student assistants are on picket lines around this Province, leaving the most
vulnerable students in our society without help, and in some instances unable to
attend school. I ask the minister: Can he tell me what measures his government
has put in place to ensure that children with special needs are looked after
during this strike?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
Time for a very quick reply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With the co-operation of our school boards, with the co-operation of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, the vast majority of our
children who require special attention, their needs are being addressed. They
are getting the attention that they require, and we will work with all parties,
Mr. Speaker, at this difficult time to ensure that the situation is as best as
possible.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The House will recess until order can be restored.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
The Chair wants to make it quite clear that members of the public are always
welcome to the galleries of this House, as they have been since Parliament first
assembled in Newfoundland and Labrador and as people are welcomed in all
Parliaments throughout the British Commonwealth; however, there is a rule that
we have in our Parliaments, not just in Newfoundland and Labrador but all
throughout Canada and all throughout the British Commonwealth, that members who
are in the galleries are not to participate or to demonstrate in any way in
order to show approval or disapproval of any proceedings in the House.
Again, I have to remind members that visitors should try their best to adhere
to the traditions and to the protocols that govern their visiting in the public
galleries. I appeal to all visitors here to listen to the debates, to listen to
what has been said; however, we cannot continue to have persistent disruption of
the proceedings.
I thank you very, very much.
We were at the stage where I was calling, I think, petitions. I think the
hon. Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair had just stood to present a
petition.
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I present the petition, I just wanted to say for the public record -
because over the weekend I got calls in my district because each time I stood on
a petition was when there was an outbreak in the House of Assembly. They wanted
to know if I had people in the galleries booing the fact that we are trying to
advocate for transportation services in Labrador.
I just want the people who are listening to know that is indeed not the case.
What it is, it is our public servant workers who are very frustrated, Mr.
Speaker, who are out on a strike because they have been provoked and pushed by
the government -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I would ask the member now - we are on petitions. I think she has made an
explanatory note, but I would ask her now if she could get to her petition, the
prayer of it, and what you wish to say in the allocated time of three minutes.
MS JONES: Indeed I will, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to clarify that is
the frustration of our public sector workers that has been ongoing in the
gallery.
My petition today is with regard to the Labrador marine service, Mr. Speaker,
and the fact that the government opposite has made a decision that is certainly
not in the fairness or certainly in the best wishes of the people I represent in
my District of Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
Mr. Speaker, this government went out and hired a consultant who gave them
advice. The advice that was given to them by the consultant was totally ignored
by the minister and by the government when they made that final decision. Also,
Mr. Speaker, I need to point out that the decision that government has chosen to
make will be an additional cost to the taxpayers of this Province that could be
as high - or will be, I would assume - as $1.7 million annually.
When you look at the fact that they have just made a decision that will cost
more money to the taxpayers of the Province, that was not recommended by the
consultant but serves only one purpose, Mr. Speaker, and that is the purpose to
meet their own political agenda and to do what was wanted to be done in the
district of the minister and Member for Lewisporte.
Mr. Speaker, my people, and the people I represent, take great exception to
that. They take great exception to it. More so, Mr. Speaker, they take exception
to the fact that the Premier of the Province, in a conference call with them on
November 26, 2003, told them, Mr. Speaker, that he would honour the
recommendations of the consultant's report and do what was most cost-effective
for the Province. That was not the case, and that did not occur. He made a
commitment to the people of my district and then he broke that commitment to
satisfy the political agenda of one member and one minister in his Cabinet, and
that is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, the money that will be used to create
these jobs in the member's own district will come out of the Labrador
Transportation Fund. That fund is there for the betterment of transportation for
the people of Labrador and there are many more priorities that money could be
used for. If there is free rein on the Labrador Transportation Fund, I say to
the Member for Lake Melville, why didn't he go after it to build an auditorium
in his district? That has been a priority for the people there. Why is there a
school in my district that has been cancelled and yet the money will go to
create employment in the District of Lewisporte? This is unfair!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up has been granted.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to point out the difference a day
makes. The Member for Lake Melville, only eighteen months ago, wrote a letter,
on file with the government, saying that the Cartwright would be the best ferry
service for Labrador; would enhance the transportation in Labrador. Now he sits
in a government, tapping his desk to a decision that is totally opposite to what
that is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe we are moving back to Motion 1 where the Leader of the Opposition
has some time to clue up. So, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 1.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition. I do
believe you have seven minutes left in the Budget Debate sector.
MR. E. BYRNE: Whatever you need (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Well, by leave.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate in our last session on
Thursday, and an opportunity to make some concluding remarks today. Just for the
record, again, the motion that I am speaking to is one that says: That this
House of Assembly Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government,
otherwise known as the Budget Speech.
I believe in the time that I spent on Thursday, Mr. Speaker, I had made it
abundantly clear to anyone who was here in the Legislature and anyone else who
was listening through our televised proceedings that I do not support the
budgetary policy of this particular government. I have been giving a number of
reasons why I did not, and why I thought that it was wrong in policy, wrong in
philosophy, wrong in terms of the choices that were made; poorly thought out,
ill-conceived and, actually, a very destructive Budget for Newfoundland and
Labrador. If that is what I believe, having read the Budget and studied it, then
it would be kind of hypocritical for me to suggest that I am going to stand and
speak in favour of a vote for a motion that says we approve the budgetary policy
of the government, because I am one of those who clearly does not.
Because there are only a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker - and I would not want
to lose an opportunity to make a few other comments. What I will do at this
point, in the last few minutes of my time, is make a motion, moved by myself, as
the Member for Exploits and the Leader of the Official Opposition, and seconded
by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, who is the Opposition House Leader. I
will forward this to the table for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, to check
that it is in order. I believe it is normally referred to as a non-confidence
motion in the Budget. I will move now this motion, and my motion is this one,
Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: My motion, seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile,
our Opposition Government House Leader, is that this House - rather than support
the budgetary policy - condemn the government for its failure to accurately
represent the true state of the economy in the Province and the government's
consequential failure to take appropriate budgetary action to deal with the real
problems.
I present that motion, Mr. Speaker, to yourself for your consideration to
check that it is in order and, if ruled such, than I would like to commence
debate on that particular motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a moment to consult with the Table
Officers to ensure the amendment is in order. We will not recess the House. We
will just take a moment or so to consult here and then we can proceed.
In consultation with the Table Officers, the motion is ruled in order. I
would invite the hon. member now, if he wishes, to speak speaking to the
non-confidence motion. I understand that you have one hour to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, like Thursday, it should not take me a full hour to say what I want
and need to say, but you never know, sometimes I get provoked by members
opposite. They get me a little bit off my train of thought and sometimes it
takes a little longer than you expect when you start.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to lay out a few things, because even
from today, we saw and witnessed a few things here with respect to questions in
Question Period that look at where we are in the Province today, look at the
budgetary situation, look at the fiscal situation, look at the circumstance that
we face, and see whether or not we should be supporting the approach taken by
this government, which is to solve the problems as they see them, in an
exaggerated version with a report that they went out and got done - that is
questionable, at very best - to exaggerate the circumstance, and then come down
with the big, heavy hammer and say: The answers are to get rid of 4,000 jobs -
and I talked a little bit about this on Thursday - get rid of 4,000 jobs.
Again, Mr. Speaker, let me restate this: There is a difference between saying
we have no choice but to get rid of 4,000 positions. We would really rather keep
them all. We really believe that everyone of these 4,000 positions is valuable,
that the people who are in these jobs are actually making a contribution. Or do
they believe as a matter of philosophy and policy, and approach and support for
a right-wing Conservative agenda, that we do not need the 4,000 anyway, even if
we had surpluses?
What we covered on Thursday, for a few minutes, was a clear indication that
the Premier of the Province today, and the Finance Minister of the Province
today, the President of Treasury Board, and a few other members who were willing
to be identified with the statement on Thursday - because when I named them they
acknowledged and said, yes, they agree with that - that they believe that even
if we were like Alberta - because by rights we should be the Alberta of the
East. If we were only getting the fair treatment from Ottawa that we deserve,
even on off-shore alone, we should be the Alberta of Eastern Canada. Now we are
not, and I am getting more concerned by the day, by the way, that it might not
be going to happen, because again, our federal minister was down here - was it
about a month ago? - opening up oil and gas week, when he said: He was here on a
Monday - it was about a month ago, maybe a little longer. The Minister of
Natural Resources, I know, would recall the date for us, because he said he was
here -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: - about a month ago. He was going to meet with the minister.
He was going to meet with our Premier on the Friday. He said: I have been sent
here by the Prime Minister to work out a plan; to find out what it is that
Newfoundland and Labrador really wants, and what it is that we can do and commit
to, so that we can make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador keeps its money from
the offshore and starts moving towards our proper status as a have Province,
instead of a have-not Province. I was encouraged by that, as I believe everybody
in the Province was. Now, what scared me and what discouraged me was what I
heard said on the weekend.
On Friday past, as a matter of fact, with the same federal minister here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, restating, by the way: I do not expect much to happen
on equalization. We all know that is not going to happen for another five years.
So we have been led down the garden path on that one again. I covered that in
some public commentary before, where our own minister, who stood here and
supported us when he was in this Legislature as part of the government, turned
changes in equalization in Newfoundland and Labrador because you can't have
your cake and eat it too. I was discussed by those comments; floored by them
actually. And now, in speaking on Friday past, he states -
AN HON. MEMBER: Was that what Mike Harris said?
MR. GRIMES: That was exactly what Mike Harris said. Now we have our own
federal minister in the federal Cabinet, Mr. Efford, saying the same thing, and
everyone who was here in this Legislature heard him make the exact opposite
speech a hundred times in this Legislature.
On Friday past though, a month after he was down here with the message of
hope, that he was sent to get the plan, to find out how it was that we could
implement something which would let us keep the money from the offshore. He
comes back on Friday past and what I heard him say was: Well, you don't really
expect me to look at quick fixes. I wouldn't want to be doing something that
is sort of a band-aid just because there is a federal election coming up. I am
looking for some long-term solutions and I might not be able to get them in the
next few months before the election.
I have always been on the record as saying: If we are going to fall for that
one, then shame on us. Shame on the whole lot of us, if we are going to fall for
that one. Here is a federal election coming, they have already pushed the whole
issue of equalization aside and said we are not going to talk about it for
another five years, and now we are down here seeing signals, a month later, from
a federal minister who was here with the great message of hope a month ago,
saying: The Prime Minister sent me down, we are going to work out arrangements,
I am going to meet with the right people here and I am going to take it back. He
told me to come down and find out what proposal to bring back to him, so we can
implement it. Now only to be told: Don't expect anything before the election.
I am not sure I can deliver anything right away. I heard, actually, one of the
television commentators say what he read into it, that it might be two or three
years before we get any money from the offshore.
I am telling you, folks, if we are going to fall for that one, then I am
going to turn into one of those salesmen who has some bogland down in Florida
and stuff to sell you. We might as well be that stupid about it, if we are going
to miss this opportunity. I am going to say it loud and clear, and people will
say: How come you are saying that. They are Liberals and you are Liberals. I
have said it before, I am for Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't care if they
are Liberals or not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: They have to do the right thing. When I have said that in the
past, people said: Oh, you are too antagonistic with Ottawa. You should go up
and be huggy, kissy, try a kinder approach and see if they will give you
something. I am telling you, the time has come now to get this commitment. I was
really distressed when I heard on Friday that the message of hope from a month
ago might disappear.
Anyway, we had some messages here today, because we all believe that is where
we need to go,
back to that kind of a future, so we don't have to take the kind of agenda
that was laid out in the Budget that I speak against and I am not going to vote
for, one that says the answer is to take 4,000 people out. What we had was the
Premier and the Finance Minister say, that even if we had all that money from
Ottawa and even if we had a balanced budget, then I believe we should take 4,000
jobs out of the public service anyway. Now, that is what they have said. They
have said it in the media. The Finance Minister said it in the media lockups
prior to the Budget. I would understand if he was there saying: Listen, we
really are strapped for cash and I haven't got much money. I would like to
keep everybody but I just cannot afford it. That is one thing. That is not what
he said.
The explanation went like this. He said: Look, in Newfoundland and Labrador,
27 per cent of the entire workforce works for the government. That is the
biggest percentage in the country. This is the explanation. He said: That is too
big a percentage. So it has nothing to do with whether you have the money or
not. There is a belief that at least is articulated and you have to, I suppose,
respect the integrity of the person to say it and say this is what I believe: I
believe, the Minister of Finance says, that we have too many people working for
the government.
Now, everywhere that I have worked before, in the teaching profession and
elsewhere that I have worked outside of being an MHA, in the public service -
and the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women would know this. She is on the record as
saying, before the election, that there are not enough child welfare workers.
When she is asked about it in the House these days she says: It is not my
department.
We know it is not her department, but long before the election she was in the
papers all over Western Newfoundland saying: I know this issue intimately. I
support this. I believe we should have more service.
Now, she is sitting there and she will vote for a Budget that says, I believe
we have too many workers. Now, I do not know if she believes it or not. Maybe
she is doing it because she believes there is no money, but the Minister of
Finance is doing it because he believes there are too many, even if you had the
money. The Premier is doing it because he believes there are too many workers,
even if you had the money, that it is sort of like a business model. You just
compare here to, say, Ontario. Well, if Ontario has only 21 per cent of the
workforce working for the government, I guess it should be 21 per cent in
Newfoundland and Labrador, not 27 per cent. Never mind the fact that we do not
have an auto industry. Never mind the fact that we do not have the other
industries. Never mind the fact that most of what is up there is supplied from
and by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, anyway, over the years. So, you just
pick a number from across the country and say, the average is 21 per cent. So,
it must be 21 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador. It does not make a bit of
sense. It does not take into any consideration the circumstances in our Province
and what we need to do, but it does reflect a conservative, Tory, right-wing
view to a mindset now being played out in a government, through a Budget.
The members opposite, I hope when they speak - because I think, Mr. Speaker,
there are probably about twenty of them who can speak after we are finished,
because we have twelve and they have thirty-two or thirty-three, not counting
the Speaker. If they all want to speak, they can all speak, and I would hope
that they would get up and say something about the 4,000 jobs, because they are
going to vote for the elimination of 4,000 jobs.
I think it would be interesting, Mr. Speaker, for each of them to stand and
say whether they are voting for the elimination of 4,000 jobs because they
believe - they have made themselves believe - that they do not have a choice, or
whether, like the Minister of Finance and their leader, the Premier, they
believe they should not be there anyway. That would be interesting. I am sure
their constituents would like to know what they believe; because I can tell you,
Mr. Speaker, what I believe. I believe we need the 4,000 jobs and, as a matter
of fact, in lots of areas we probably need a few more, just like the Minister of
Human Resources, Employment and Labour and the Minister Responsible for the
Status of Women thought she believed in before she got elected. Before she got
elected she thought she believed that, and she is going to stand up some time in
the next few weeks and vote to take away 4,000 jobs. Maybe she will not, though.
Maybe will come over on this side and sit as an Independent or join the NDP or
do something. I doubt it very much but it is possible, I suppose. You never
know.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of things about no confidence, let me get back to this
one. There are people on the other side who do not have a lot of confidence in
the Budget because they do not know for sure what the Budget is. Let me give
another example. I gave one the other day about the cancellation of the hospital
in Gander, the James Paton Memorial Hospital, redevelopment. Cancelled, the
Budget says, right on page twelve. I will reference it again to make sure
everybody understands that I am not making this up. These are the exact words
written in the Budget and read into the Speech, page twelve, top sentence, I
highlighted it because I could not believe it when I heard it, but it is here.
"We are canceling several health projects, namely the extension to the
Grand Falls-Windsor hospital...", which was, by the way, to put in a new
cancer treatment clinic; $4.3 million total cost, of which they were going to
raise $1.3, the government was going to be asked for $3 million. This new
government cancelled it and is going to spend $5.1 million instead, over the
next three years - the same time this redevelopment would have occurred and
would have been built - to put a ferry into Lewisporte when there is no need for
it to go there, as an option, as an alternative, as a choice, for the people to
get on a ferry because they might not want to drive over the road.
Lawrence O'Brien, the federal MP, when he was asked about that, said,
"This lack of respect for Labrador is gutless and appalling." - by
this government. Nice words to hear. I am sure the members opposite do not like
hearing that said about them.
He says, he "...is especially disappointed that the Premier, who stood
up for the Labrador Transportation Fund when the previous administration
proposed abolishing it, is now siphoning money out of the fund for political
reasons."
Lawrence O'Brien, the MP for Labrador, working very hard, by the way, with
the Premier and the government to try to do things about 5 Wing Goose Bay and
other things in Labrador. I am sure he did not find it very easy to say that the
"...lack of respect for Labrador is gutless and appalling." - by his
good personal friend, by the way, the Member for Lake Melville and the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. Good personal friends. I am sure that
Mr. O'Brien did not take any particular satisfaction in saying that but he
decided, on balance, to stand up for Labrador, not to just kowtow to the one-man
show, which is what we will see from the Member for Lake Melville, who is
nodding in agreement that is what he is going to do at the time when he gets to
vote on the Budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: I say we will see the Member for Lake Melville stand up and
vote for it.
Talk about the cancellations: Grand Falls-Windsor, James Paton Memorial
Hospital, the redevelopment in Gander, and the health centre at Grand Bank.
I mentioned on Thursday, though, that when the Premier visited Gander -
because that was not a popular decision - the first paragraph from his speech
says: Premier Williams insisted that, despite what was said in the Budget
Speech, redevelopment at the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander is not
cancelled.
Now he is behaving exactly the same after he is elected as he was before. You
could almost understand it before, because the pattern, Mr. Speaker, was, no
matter where you were, no matter who you are speaking to, tell them what you
thought they wanted to hear because you had to get elected. Now, he is elected
and he is still using the same modus operandi, as they say in the detective
shows, the same MO. He is going around now. If he is in Gander, tell them what
they want to hear in Gander. So, in St. John's, what did he do? The Minister
of Finance got up and read this statement: We are cancelling the extension to
the James Peyton Memorial Hospital in Gander. The Premier went like this [member
taps on desk]. He went to Gander and a few people criticized it and, out in
Gander, he was making a speech in Gander, he said: Oh, never mind what the
Budget says. That is not cancelled.
So, which one is the Budget, what he said in Gander or what he applauded in
this Legislature? I am sure the Member for Gander would like to know before he
stands up and supports the elimination of 4,000 jobs and tells the people in
Gander they are not needed any more for elderly care. They are not needed for
acute care. They are not needed in the school boards any more. They are not
needed out there providing basic services. At least some of the 4,000 are going
to come out of Gander, for sure, because there are a lot of them out there.
Then you have the typical confusion, which is why we do not support this
policy, because they are still grappling themselves over there with what it
means. The messages are confusing. Now we have the Member for Bonavista North
and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation - because, again, in the
same Budget document it said that the golf course project in Bonavista North is
cancelled. It did not say delayed. It did not say deferred. It did not say
postponed. It said cancelled. There are other things in here, by the way, like
The Rooms, on page ten, where it does say - so they must know the difference
between the two words - "We will delay opening The Rooms...". It did
not say we are going to cancel it. It said we are going to delay that, but
theses others were going to be cancelled.
As a matter of fact, in the first interview that the Minister of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation did on the radio, he was asked about cancelling the golf
course. He said: Oh, in light of all the other decisions, that was the easiest
one of them all, to cancel a golf course. That was the easiest one to do, to
cancel a golf course.
Then the Member for Bonavista North, his colleague who sits up here behind
him and supports him and taps on the desk every day because 4,000 jobs are
going, because his golf course is going to be cancelled - and the people out
there thought that was going to be one of the real hinges for tourism and
economic development in the region, just like it has been, by the way, in some
other parts of the Province, for that summer season. It really helps. So, what
they did with him is this. He said - this is the Member for Bonavista North, in
talking to the reporters, two answers inside the same interview. It says how
much they know about the Budget that they are going to stand up and support in a
few days' time. He said: Well, you know, if we are cancelling - now, here is
the Member for Bonavista North - the hospital in Gander, you cannot expect us to
go ahead with a golf course.
AN HON. MEMBER: He thinks it is cancelled.
MR. GRIMES: He thinks it is cancelled. He is in Bonavista North, which is
- I have driven it - I guess maybe an hour's drive to Gander, talking to the
same reporter in the same paper, saying: Well, you have to understand cancelling
the golf course if you are going to cancel the hospital. Meanwhile, the Premier
is up in Gander making a speech saying the hospital is not cancelled.
It even gets better. Now they contact the Minister for Tourism, Culture and
Recreation, who said the day before on the radio: By the way, the easiest
decision that we made out of the whole lot was to cancel the golf course. You
know we are not going to have 20,000 people on strike, tell them we have no
money, have a wage freeze, cut 4,000 jobs, and still go ahead and build a golf
course. That was an easy decision to make.
Now he is in the paper, and what does he say in the paper? Now he is in the
paper saying: Oh, it is not really cancelled. Maybe the finances of the Province
might turn around in a year or two and we can have a good look at it again.
AN HON. MEMBER: Harry didn't know that.
MR. GRIMES: The Member for Bonavista North did not even know that. The
Member for Bonavista North was saying: Well, it has to be cancelled because the
hospital is cancelled.
I will not spend a lot of time on that, Mr. Speaker, other than to point out
that there is a fair bit of confusion with the crew.
AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget Grand Falls-Windsor.
MR. GRIMES: Our friend for Windsor-Springdale, standing up for his
constituents, by the way, the right thing to do -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: - standing up for his constituents - the same Budget, same
page, same speech, the redevelopment, the new cancer treatment clinic in Grand
Falls-Windsor, that I have visited half a dozen times, and so did the Member for
Windsor-Springdale, I will give him credit for that, so did the Member for Grand
Falls-Buchans, and Windsor-Springdale. We all visited it because we have an
interest in it, because we believe it should be build, because we have seen the
conditions in which the cancer patients are subjected to inhumane circumstances
when they are already suffering enough and it is not a decent place for them to
receive their treatments.
AN HON. MEMBER: A press conference during the election (inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: So they go during the election and say: Oh, we commit to
that. Cancelled, it says in the Budget we were supposed to vote on. Front page
story: MHA Hunter confirms PC's commitment to redevelopment.
Now, which one is it? What are we supposed to vote on in a few days' time?
Are we voting on the Grand Falls redevelopment being cancelled, or does the
Member for Windsor-Springdale now know something that the Premier has not told
anybody in the Province, that the Finance Minister has not told anybody in the
Province, that the Minister of Health and Community Services, who is responsible
for it, has not told anybody in the Province, that the Minister of Works and
Transportation is responsible for getting it built if the government decides to
build it, has not told anybody about? Or is he just out playing a bit of
politics, or is he just out trying to save his neck?
AN HON. MEMBER: There are two budgets.
MR. GRIMES: Maybe there is one Budget for public consumption and another
one for any Conservative member who gets into a bit of trouble in their own
district, to go out and tell them something else.
Mr. Speaker, there are some serious problems with respect to that, and it
just goes to show the kinds of things that have happened.
A couple of things today, though, that are again telling, the Minister of
Government Services was asked about food inspections in the food-serving
establishments in the Province - restaurants, pubs and so on - all over
Newfoundland and Labrador. The view is this - let me put the story clear again -
4,000 too many workers, we are told, so we are going to eliminate them, but
again the very group that are now in government, when they were in the
Opposition, asked countless questions of us, as the government, as to why you
were not going to beef up the number of inspectors. In particular, the most
unfortunate incident a little while ago, where we had a volunteer group serving
a turkey tea, a takeout dinner, with salmonella, and there being challenges as
to whether or not there were going to be new rules for those kinds of things,
because the food, if it is going to be served and sold to the public, you need
to check the facilities. You need to check the law to see that it is complied
with. You need to check for hygiene and safety and cleanliness and health. They
said: Aren't you going to hire more than the thirty-one paltry inspectors that
you have? We have 600 communities, most of them with some kind of a food-serving
establishment, and you have thirty-one inspectors. They said: You need more
because you are putting people's safety at risk.
Today, the minister was asked about the fact that under the essential
services, because she did not know how many were there, she had to be told - she
was told that there are only five of them now working. There are only five of
them working for nineteen days, instead of thirty-one that they said were not
enough. She was asked about safety and she said the necessary inspections are
being done.
MS FOOTE: Scary, that is scary.
MR. GRIMES: There is a really, truly scary thought, because here is what
I read into it. Maybe that is where part of the 4,000 are going to disappear,
because if the ones that are being done now are the only ones that are
necessary, maybe we do not need thirty-one of these inspectors. Is that what
they are really saying? I could understand if she said: We are hard-pressed and
we know we are not doing as many inspections as we need done and we do have some
concern for safety - but, that was not her language. That was not her answer.
Her answer was: The necessary inspections are being done.
If those are the only ones that are necessary, does that mean that is the
only level of inspection that we can expect at all, into the future? Is that
part of the plan? Is that where some of the 4,000 are going to disappear from?
Because you have to listen very closely. We have learned this. You have to
listen very closely to this group and what they say. They learn it from their
leader, who today was asked: Are there any consultations about back-to-work
legislation, or is there any drafting? He ignored the first part and said there
is no drafting going on.
Now, the Minister of Finance got up and said there are no consultations going
on, but I can tell you there are and there have been. One person who has been
involved is one of the ones who scurried out through the door today, the
Minister of Health and Community Services, who says every single day that she is
in contact with the key managers in the health care system every day. She knows
about the seniors who are being put into Attends or Pampers instead of being
taken to the washroom. She knows it cannot go on much longer, and surely
goodness they are not going to sit there and all of a sudden they will get a
call tomorrow and say: Oh, we had better have our first chat now. We had better
have our first chat ever about back-to-work legislation. They have already had
lots of discussion, and the Premier did not talk about the word discussion. He
said: I have not given any instruction to draft it yet.
We have caught on to this crew, just like the people of the Province have
caught on in the last six months.
AN HON. MEMBER: Words are important.
MR. GRIMES: Watch the words closely. Words are very important. My
colleague, the Government House Leader and the Minister of Natural Resources
will remind me, I am sure, when he speaks in the debate. I am sure he has lots
of examples of things that I have said in the past that he will remind me of,
and many others, because he is good at that. He keeps track of it and he pays a
lot of attention. We are learning to pay very close attention to this government
and the Premier, because the word that is coming around is betrayal.
The first group that used that word, the Metis. Does everybody remember? They
thought they had heard and seen - they even had a letter that laid out how they
were going to have their hunting rights guaranteed to them by this group should
they get elected. Then, what they got back was slick lawyer talk afterwards,
saying: Oh yes, we applied it to you but it did not really apply.
That might make sense to a lawyer, that might make sense to some people who
are trying not to do something and find a good excuse not to do it, but it did
not make any sense to the Metis and all the members of the Labrador Metis Nation
who used the word betrayed.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have seen betrayed used by the workers,
20,000 of them on the street, who took it seriously when they saw full-page ads
in the paper from the government during the election saying: No layoffs, we are
committed to a quality public service. This government, if elected, there will
be no layoffs in the public service and we will not reduce the public service by
25 per cent, contrary to the allegations and the fearmongering of our political
opponents.
I guess they felt a bit betrayed because they saw this, by the way. Even
their president admitted that they voted for this particular person because they
had these kinds of assurances. Then, we had all kinds of issues with respect to
the school boards, who were told - our critic pointed out that from January
right up to a week before the Budget, representatives of the eleven school
boards, which are now going to be five, were told by the Minister of Education:
No, no, we are not doing any realignment of school boards this year. We might
look at it for the future.
The last group in Gander were told that, the week before the Budget. Sure
enough, when the Budget was read, here you go, it is all going to be done by
September. The Chair of the largest school board in the Province, which
represents twenty-odd, almost 30 per cent of the full student population of the
whole Province, resigns because he said there was no consultation; because the
consultation he was involved in was one that said you do not have to worry about
it, we will come back and talk to you about these kinds of things.
Mr. Speaker, then of course we have the school councils that believed last
year when the group - the same one, the man who is now the Minister of Education
was marching with them out in the lobby when we brought in a budget that laid
off some of the teachers - not the number that is in the report, in the formula,
but laid off some teachers and kept 218 in the system. He walked outside and
marched with them and said: One teacher coming out of the system is one too
many. So they felt they had great comfort, and they had the man who is now the
Minister of Education saying that last year with them. They had the man who is
now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education saying that and
marching with them. Then when they announced they were going to reduce 476
teachers over the next two years, they applauded the desk, like that.
They were sitting in the gallery, Mr. Speaker. The representatives of the
school councils were sitting in the gallery that day and they had to get up and
walk out because they could not believe what they were seeing. They could not
believe what they were seeing, but again, you see now the same group - let me
take the argument for you. A year ago the argument was this: Never mind the
pupil-teacher ratio, that does not mean anything. Never mind that we have the
lowest pupil-teacher ration in Canada. Why are you government members saying
that? That does not make a row of beans difference. A small pupil-teacher ration
does not mean anything. We need the teachers. You should not be laying them off.
We need some more because we do not have enough programs in rural Newfoundland
and Labrador. There is too much distance education. We need some more student
assistants because there are not enough hours available for our special needs
students. That was what their speeches were.
This year, when it was announced they were going to take 476 teachers out,
what was the speech that the Minister of Education gave the day after? He said:
Well, it should have a very minimal impact. There probably should not be any
negative impact because, you know, we have the lowest pupil-teacher ratio in the
whole country. We have the best pupil-teacher ratio in the whole country, what
do we need these teachers for? You can understand why those people felt so
betrayed, Mr. Speaker, that they left and walked out of the gallery. I do not
think, if they were given a chance, that they would vote for this Budget either;
I do not think they would approve the budgetary thing.
One of the key issues that is now central to whether or not this strike
settles by mutual agreement or whether we are going to have draconian
back-to-work legislation brought in by this government - and then we will see
where they all stand. They will get a chance to speak to it. They will get a
chance to vote for it. One of the key issues - because there are two remaining
right now - is sick leave and the fact that there was a nine-week strike in the
schools in Newfoundland and Labrador - not every school board, it did not happen
in St. John's. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons people said it went on
so long is that it was not in St. John's; that this board was not impacted. It
was only in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the Opposition used to say. The
then Opposition, they would say it was only rural. So he said: You Liberals are
not paying attention to it because it is not here in St. John's.
The issues were these: it was dedicated hours of work, committed hours of
work and dedicated funding so that we could have appropriate levels of
secretarial assistants in the schools, appropriate numbers of hours for those
providing the cleaning and janitorial services - because many of them, by the
way, double as bus drivers. In order to have a full job they drive the buses.
They would go in and clean the buildings, and then drive them back home; so all
those kinds of things. After a nine-week strike we had people like Dr. Phil
Warren and Vic Young involved in it, who finally brokered a solution. The
solution was to put dedicated funding in and make the school boards put in time
for the secretaries and make the school boards put in time, proper hours, for
the janitorial services, and make the school boards put in the proper hours for
the bus drivers who were also janitors in cleaning the schools; because they
wanted clean and safe schools.
Then there was one other issue, Information Technology support services,
which we did not fund last year. We had started implementing. We funded the
other two. We did not put in the money for the Information Technology support,
which is being done - as the Minister of Education would know, and the
Parliamentary Secretary would know - mostly by teachers and students and those
secretaries in their spare time, free. You know how important, by the way, your
systems are in the school. They need access to their computer systems. They need
access in some of the bigger schools through their local area networks. Some of
them are big enough to have them, especially some in the city. It is all being
done on a volunteer basis by members of the school board unions and some of the
teachers and some of the better students who happen to have a knack for these
things.
Sometimes, like when I was first doing that twenty years ago, they brought me
up one summer and said you are going to have to teach computer technology in the
summer. I said, very good. The last time I did anything like that was in
university twenty years before that. They said, we will send you off to summer
school and you will learn the course yourself and then you will teach it. I
learned a little bit. My five-year-old daughter - we had a computer at home -
picked it up a lot faster than I did because that came natural to her. She
taught me a few things. Then the best students in the class taught me; I was the
teacher. I was in charge but I am telling you, those students learned a lot
because we all learned together. I was no great master at it. Today I pride
myself in using it for e-mail purposes and a few other things but I am telling
you, that it is absolutely essential - and you have that kind of an arrangement
in the school boards.
What does the government say? What does the government say in the strike? For
the first time in history we had some dedicated monies - because what the school
boards did, if you just gave them the funding they did not use it for
secretaries. They did not use it for janitorial services. They used it for other
purposes that they deemed to be more important. So we made a major breakthrough
as the result of a nine-week strike, and here is this government, a
year-and-a-half later, back at the table saying: We want to reserve the right
for the managers of the system to decide whether there is going to be a
secretary, whether we need certain numbers of janitorial hours, and we are not
going to have any dedicated hours at all. Members opposite, Mr. Speaker -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: During the strike they said we were not going far enough,
that we are being mean-spirited. We did not understand the issue and we should
put more money into it, because the secretaries, the janitors and the bus
drivers and the other maintenance people were right. That was the view then.
Now, it saying: No, no, no. The managers, the people at the school board office
should be given the money and they should not be told whether or not you have to
have a half-time secretary or a full-time secretary. They should not be told how
many hours you have to have paid to clean the school. So, you have those kinds
of things happening and they are saying we have to take that back.
When asked about it today, when asked about services for those kinds of
issues and asked about special needs, the Minister of Education again, very
telling, said: Oh - I think, the phrase was - minimal disruption. Minimal
disruption. Here you have school boards, again, where they have board-owned
busing services in rural Newfoundland - the same areas where the strike was a
few years ago - where on the first day back after Easter, attendance is down by
somewhere between 30 per cent and 50 per cent. The Minister of Education stands
in the House and says: Oh, that is a minimal disruption. Because their plan, by
the way, in taking out the teachers and consolidating the school boards, is that
most of these schools that he is talking about, are going to close anyway with
this crew. I guess that is a minimal disruption if there are only half of them
out of school now, because the whole bunch of them are going to go to a
different school sometime soon when their particular version of saving rural
Newfoundland and Labrador unfolds. So, you have those kinds of things that
happen and you have a general message, Mr. Speaker, of betrayal that is setting
in. It is for those reasons that we think the whole Budget is wrong-headed and
we will not be voting for it. I certainly will not.
Mr. Speaker, let me move to another topic of broken commitment and betrayal.
Tied to the school system, tied to this Budget, tied to the fact that one of the
things the government prided itself on in the Budget that they read - which, I
think, I have made the point that we are not sure if that is the one we are
voting on or not, because what has been read has already been changed by the
Member for Windsor-Springdale in one town, changed by the Premier in another
town, changed by the Member for Bonavista North someplace else. So it depends
where it goes. But, to get to the issue, they said: We did not raise taxes. Now,
never mind the corporate one. I am sure some of my friends here will talk about
the corporate taxes. I want to talk about personal taxes. We did not raise
taxes. That is one of the great accomplishments in the Budget, they did not
raise taxes. Instead, they did one of the most retrogressive, terrible things
that you can do instead, which is put in fees. They put in fees like licensing
your vehicle. It went from $140 to $180; a $40 increase. The problem with that,
you see, Mr. Speaker, from a philosophical point of view, is that it is a $40
increase for everybody who has to have a car, a vehicle; $40. So, it is $40 for
somebody who is making minimum wage. It is $40 for someone who is out there
scraping by, falling through the cracks, those people who are out there just
getting by, not on social assistance, just barely making it, proud to be
working, just keeping the bare essentials together, and it is $40 for me. I do
not mind telling people. I make $145,000 a year or something, whatever it is. So
it is $40 for me and it is $40 for somebody who makes $5,000. Now, that is what
is wrong with that.
At least when there is a tax system, if you put on a 1 per cent tax then you
take 1 per cent off the $5,000 person, by the way, which they do not pay because
there are certain levels up to which you pay income and you get forgiven all
your income tax, and you take a per cent off me, which is not $40 but it might
be $150. That is right, because I am supposed to be able to afford to pay for
it, but this non-discriminatory tax grab through the fee system shows no
respect. As a matter of fact, the issue was, that is why school tax was
abolished over a decade ago, because it was like $100 or $150 for everybody in
the town, regardless of their earnings income and earnings level, and was
replaced by a payroll tax, which has since been reduced over the years, but it
was replaced because it was wrong in philosophy. It was $150 for the poorest
person in town and $150 for the richest person in town. It did not respect the
ability to pay.
Everybody who is in a taxation system in government normally says you put in
a tax that respects the ability to pay, and those who have more can pay more,
and usually do not mind doing it, and those who have very little or nothing do
not pay anything.
Let me tie in the fees - ranges of fees like you would not believe. One of
the things that we were criticized for last year, by the way, when school
opened, was school fees. Does anybody remember?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. GRIMES: School fees. The same one, the Minister for Education now,
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, out in the lobby
again, out marching around with people, saying: Abolish the school fees. Get rid
of the school fees. Of course, we said we would, we absolutely would.
Now, they did not mention it because they were asked during the election: If
you get elected, are you going to honour these commitments that the Liberal
made? The Premier sort of said: Well, we will look at them.
I guarantee you, they did not get eliminated. Not only that, a whole bunch of
brand new fees that did not exist at all - by the way there is now, for the
first time in the history of the Province, a fee for a death certificate.
The last crack is going out the door, going out the door. There was never a
fee for a death certificate until this group brought it in, in this Budget. So
they get you when you are born, for a birth certificate, and they get you going
out the door. They forgot all about the fact that last year they were supporting
doing away with school fees, and you had the director, like Mr. Shortall,
talking about they might have to increase them, they might have to do some
things because they are not sure of the budgets they are going to get for
operational purposes.
There are lots of broken commitments and there is a whole litany of groups
that are now out there adding their name to the notion of saying, we feel we
have been betrayed.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that they do not take it lightly and they do not like
to hear that said about them. I saw a cartoon in the paper one day last week
about the sick leave issue with the strikers. (Inaudible) Danny talking about
the sick leave. It said: Sure, he has made me sick every day for six months.
It is these kinds of things, Mr. Speaker, that lead to that kind of a feeling
which shows itself in editorial cartoons and it shows itself in groups that feel
very much let down by the government.
The difficulty, as I see it - I will try to wrap up shortly, Mr. Speaker - is
this: It is a Budget that does not show any hope. There is nothing in it about
how the economy is going to grow. I mentioned on Thursday that last year, for
the first time in over a decade and for the first time in twenty years, we had
both population growth and in-migration in Newfoundland and Labrador. Last year.
What are they predicting in the Budget again this year? A return to
out-migration. I think everyone who has seen the Budget knows why, because if
you are going to take 4,000 opportunities out of the system, if you are going to
reduce the services in health care, if you are going to reduce the services in
education, if you are going to reduce all the basic services that people expect,
need and desire from their people because some of their members, at least,
believe that we are providing too many of them. Some of them might still think
that maybe we do not have enough money.
I talked about that a bit on Thursday and I might not have time today. Here
is how bad the despair was. A day or so, Mr. Speaker, after the Budget, the
Premier was asked about it in an interview again outside the Legislature.
Oftentimes he says something in here, gives an answer, and goes out and says
something - elaborates a bit more, I will say. He says a bit more outside the
House. He does not seem to want to answer the questions from us, but if the
media asks him he sort of says a bit more. Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, he was asked
about: Well, you know, there are pretty dire projections in your Budget. Things
do not look so good. A $360 million deficit or so, all these things happening,
and you are planning on getting it down to zero over four years, but there is no
real growth agenda in here. You are going to set up a business department some
time and you are going to set up a Rural Secretariat some time when you get
around to it. Not yet. Those things are in there but there are no real teeth to
it. There is no real substance to it. There is no real essence to it, to show
that there were any definitive plans to see how the economy is going to grow.
Outside the Legislature when he was asked about it, finally, maybe he was
getting a little bit exasperated, might have been getting a little bit
frustrated, which he does sometimes, he said: Really, if the feds do not help
us, I do not know what we are going to do.
Here is the man who went and got elected with a whole bunch of people
dragging on the coattails, Sir, like you would not believe, saying: I know how
to make successful businesses. I know how to create jobs. I know how to grow an
economy. I know how to make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place.
What does he say himself, two days after the Budget? If the feds don't
help, I don't know how we are going to do it. Now, there is a message of hope
for you from the Premier of the Province. I will tell you one thing, our message
always was, we knew and we know we are not getting the proper treatment that we
should be getting from the federal government, but we always dedicated and
committed ourselves to creating the opportunities, providing for more job
growth, making sure that the economy got stronger and more diversified, and then
generating more revenues for the government so we could pay for the services
that people need, instead of using the excuse that, we haven't got the money
so I am going to cut out the service. I have always said, that is the easy way
out.
The new Premier, with - what was the slogan, Real Leadership - the New
Approach, or something?
AN HON. MEMBER: The New Approach - Real Leadership.
MR. GRIMES: Two days after his first Budget throwing the hands up in
despair and saying: Well, boy, I don't know what we are going to do here if
the feds don't help out. That is not a very hopeful, inspiring message for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Let me take a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, to talk about rural
revitalization, because I think the new department is named Innovation, Trade
and Rural Development. One of the things that is going to happen is there is
going to be a rural secretariat established sometime. They have only been the
government for six months so far, they haven't gotten around to it yet. I
guess, that shows you have much of a priority it was. It didn't take them long
to figure out that they had to freeze the wages of people. It didn't take them
six months to make that decision. It didn't take them six months to make the
decision that they are going to get rid of 4,000 jobs. I guarantee you, it is
taking them a whole lot longer to figure out where the rural secretariat is
going to be. Guess where it is going to be, by the way?
AN HON. MEMBER: Ontario.
MR. GRIMES: St. John's. No, no. St. John's.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not Ontario?
MR. GRIMES: No, it is not in Ontario. That is a different office in
Ontario. They are definitely creating a job in Ontario.
It is going to be in St. John's, and we are going to have the very thing
that was criticized - we used to have an Economic Recovery Commission before, a
decade or so ago, and the Opposition criticized it and said: How do you expect a
bunch of people sitting around St. John's to figure out the solutions in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador? So, what are they going to do now? The very thing
they criticized ten years ago, they have it reinvented. They put a new name on
it, called it rural secretariat, and it is going to be right here in St. John's.
They are going to hire a bunch of people here in St. John's to sit down and
figure out what is going to work on the Northern Peninsula, what is going to
work on the Burin Peninsula, what is going to work on the Bonavista Peninsula,
what is going to work in Northern Labrador and what is going to work in the
Southern Straits of Labrador.
What they have always told us, and what they would tell them if they ever
talked to anybody, is: Listen, you don't need to sit in St. John's and talk
about that. We know the answers, just come out and talk to us. Just come out
here and if we give you a good idea, work with us and let us make it happen.
That is all they want. Instead, they are going to set up a rural secretariat
here in St. John's, spend a million or a million and a half on it, employ some
people, by the way, in jobs at $100,000 a year or so, to sit in St. John's,
drink coffee and talk about what might work in rural Newfoundland. Now, that is
what you are going to have from this particular group. That is the message of
hope that is in this particular Budget.
The minister, by the way, in standing to make her maiden speech a couple of
days ago, talked about it a little bit and talked about the fact that she has
bought into the argument, that I believe she would like to keep the 4,000 jobs
is what I heard her say, because she believes that they are getting rid of the
4,000 jobs because they just cannot afford it. I do not think she believes they
should not have them. Maybe she will stand up the next time she speaks, Mr.
Speaker, and clarify that. I was listening closely to what she said. I got the
impression that she believes it would be good to have the 4,000 jobs if we could
keep them, but she has bought into the myth that we are just about bankrupt and
we are just about broke and we really cannot afford it.
AN HON. MEMBER: She knows the difference.
MR. GRIMES: Maybe not, but she will explain it all to us.
The real story, as I mentioned the other day, basically is this. What we have
had - because she talked a bit about this fiscal mess and the mismanagement and
all those buzz phrases they like to use. Let me again, Mr. Speaker, as I start
to conclude, talk about the real circumstance in the last few years. Let me talk
about the last two Budgets in particular, the last two presented by Liberal
governments that I was very pleased to lead.
Two years ago, when this same Mr. O'Brien who is now saying, " This
lack of respect for Labrador is gutless and appalling." - when he was
criticizing the Liberal government because we were planning on taking the
funding from the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, which had $97 million
remaining in it at the time, and we were going to put it into the general
revenues of the Province so that we could keep hiring teachers, keep paying all
the health care workers, keep going with the health care system that we desired,
put the kind of funding that we needed into the school boards for things like
the secretarial services and the janitorial, and we said, rather than leave it
off in a separate pot, we will deal with the general issues of the Province and
we will find the money at some point in time with the help of people like the
then Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the MP for Labrador. We would go to Ottawa
and they might help us with, say, the Labrador Highway because that was a great
development thing - roundly criticized, roundly, roundly, roundly criticized.
By the end of the year, because we worked so hard at creating jobs, growing
the economy and making sure that revenues increased, we projected that year a
deficit of $90 million. Now, when it was all over, guess what really happened?
This is the first time that some of the members opposite have heard this,
because they have heard a very different story painted for them. What happened
that year was that we actually generated revenues of $150 million more than we
anticipated, because we worked with people to create jobs. Employment went up,
unemployment went down. Retail sales went up because people had confidence.
Money came into the provincial Treasury and it was $150 million more than we
anticipated. So, what we did was, we left the $97 million in the Labrador Fund.
We did not have to take it out. In the Budget, we did not know if we were going
to - we said we would take it out. We left it in the Fund, Mr. Speaker. Not only
that, the deficit that we said was going to be $90 million came in at $30
million, so we put $97 million back in the Fund and we raised another $60
million. I do not know the details of it, but -
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: No, but it is all part of it, in any event, and it fluctuates
from year to year.
Just for the people who are watching on television, Mr. Speaker, the
Government House Leader is asking about how much of the federal revenues did
they change drastically that year. The fact of the matter is that every year
there is over $1 billion that comes to Newfoundland and Labrador as a
combination of equalization, CHST and other transfers directly to the
government, and the number does not change. It is within $100 million or so each
year, and $100 million is a lot of money, but in the Budget purposes it does not
make that big a difference when you are talking about $4.1 billion versus $4.2
billion. When you talking billions of dollars, which is what our provincial
government Treasury is, then the $100 million, while it is a huge number, in
context, is not overly significant - but here, we outperformed by $160 million.
Then the next year came, which was last year, and last year again we
predicted that there would be a deficit of $286 million because there were some
one-time funds that were no longer available and so on, and we laid out a plan
to balance that over four years, which is what the current government is saying
now, but what really happened is again that revenues increased by another $100
million. The real deficit was still bad enough. It was $196 million or $197
million, but it is not the disaster that this particular group has bought into.
If you believe some of these people, like the Minister of Innovation, Trade
and Rural Development, they would make you believe that there is no money
anywhere. There is no hope. Whatever you put in the Budget is all you can ever
hope for. The case, by the way, with this group, that is exactly the way it is
going to be, because by eliminating 4,000 jobs they are casting a great pall
over consumer confidence. They are predicting, in this year's Budget, that
retail sales will decline, and so they will because there is no confidence.
They are putting us on the track they are in, into a downward spiral
fiscally. I have talked about it publicly before. It is part of the kind of
mistake that we made, as a government, in the early 1990s, because we took the
same fiscal route and all that happened is that it turned inward and downward
upon itself, and the very revenues that government needs to pay for services
diminished instead of growing.
In the last few years, we took the opposite approach. We had the consumer
confidence. We created the jobs. Employment went up. Unemployment went down.
Record job numbers in the Province. The revenues increased. Out-migration
stopped.
Now we have a new government, and today we heard the Premier say: We got
elected on a mandate to do this. That is not what anybody heard last September
and October. Nobody heard: Elect me and I will get rid of 4,000 jobs. I will
have wage freezes, and I will do all the - nobody heard that. When the Premier
of the day was asked about it publicly, actually he was asked by one of the
reporters: Well, why didn't you mention a wage freeze during the election? He
said: Nobody asked me about it. I was not asked about a wage freeze. I was asked
about layoffs. Then he tried to say: Well, I said there would be no massive
layoffs. That was the excuse he was giving for a few weeks. Of course the full
page ads did not say anything about massive. It said: The team led by the now
Premier has clearly stated that under a Progressive Conservative government
there will be no layoffs in the public service.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not one.
MR. GRIMES: No sign of the word massive. That was the mandate that was
given, and then the Premier stands today in answer to questions and says: We
were given a mandate to layoff these people, get rid of 4,000 jobs, bring in the
wage freezes. They were going to even roll back $5 a month from the pensioners,
until they came to their senses. They tortured and tormented the pensioners
even, for three or four months. They thought they were going to lose $5 per
month. You had a Premier who would say: Oh, I had not checked it. I did not know
how much it was going to be. I did not know it was going to be $5. That was very
telling in and of itself.
Mr. Speaker, what we have is this. We have a deficit which needs to be
brought under control through some moderate restraint measures, not the kind of
draconian measures that are in this Budget. We have a problem, a separate one,
and a different one with pensions. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Finance
address it, a day or so ago, when he said: Over the last twenty years the
investments in the pension fund have averaged a return of 10.2 per cent. He said
if that happens again, if that continues, we will not need to worry about
changing any benefits or changing any contributions, things will be fine.
I believe they finally came to their senses over the weekend, and wrote down,
I think for the unions, saying: We are not going to increase your contributions
and we are not going to do away with any of your pension benefits over the life
of whatever agreement we put in place. But, it took them until nineteen days
into a strike to finally agree to it at the table, of what he had been saying
publicly, and stood in this House and said: If the same performance of 10.2 per
cent return on investment occurs, there will be no problems with the pension
plan, it will fix itself over time. There are additional contributions being
made, above and beyond the partnering of a 50-50 split, the employees
contributing, the employer contributing. The government, by the way, on the
encouragement of an auditor general from ten years ago - a Liberal government,
on the encouragement of an auditor general, took it seriously and made special
contributions to the pension plan above and beyond what was required to match
the contribution from the employees. We did it consistently, year in and year
out. It started at $20 million extra, went up to $40 million, went up to $60
million, and I believe now it is even higher than that. The combination of the
special contributions and the investment will certainly see the pension plans -
but again, some members opposite, because they want to talk about an accrual
deficit, say: Oh, the pension plans are so bad -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for some concluding comments.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a few minutes to clue up my last few thoughts with respect to this
non-confidence motion. There are some who then - now on the opposite side -
firmly believe that the pension plan or plans are in such bad shape that the
whole fiscal integrity of the Province is in jeopardy. Nothing could be further
from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely nothing!
There is a plan in place that has been worked at now for ten years, being
continually worked at by this government, to its credit, and the Finance
Minister himself, saying: If the returns that have happened on average in the
last twenty years continue, it will take care of itself over time. When they
want to say we have to get rid of 4,000 jobs, they say: Oh my, the pension plans
are just about bankrupt. This cannot be handled. This is terrible. Again, the
circumstances, the real circumstances that you have to deal with.
I want to make a couple of other comments, Mr. Speaker. I think there are a
number of people, including myself, who had different expectations of our new
Premier than what we have seen. I firmly believe for one, because I have known
him on a personal basis for a number of years - as a matter of fact, he has
often told me in the past, when I met him in different portfolios that I was
working in, that he thought I was doing a fabulous job. He thought I was doing a
very good job, and that he really admired people who went into public life and
stood by their convictions and did the things they thought they had to do.
Others who are here, by the way, have been in my presence and his presence when
he said those things to me. Now, you would never believe it today compared to
what he says these days.
Also, he always used to give this message: Well, the one thing I do not like
about some politicians - because he always excluded me - is that some
politicians are a bit manipulative. They try to twist things around. They are
doing things for political reasons, instead of just doing the right thing. He
said: From what I have seen from you, you stand up - whatever job you are given
to do, you do the best you can with the job. You go out and stand up and do what
the government has decided is the best thing for the Province. You go out and
defend it and support it, and you work at it. He said: I give you a lot of
credit for that.
I assumed we were going to get a person who was not at all manipulative; wasn't
interested in playing games; wasn't interested in promising somebody one thing
and doing another. Why would he? Why would this new leader, this new Premier,
bother to play those kinds of games? That is what has disappointed so many
people, Mr. Speaker. It is because we have seen those kinds of games played
repeatedly. Unfortunately, the couple of examples I gave before show that they
are still being played. They are still being played in Gander, about whether
there is - if it is cancelled, what he used to say to me is: Stand up and tell
them it is cancelled. Don't mislead them. Don't make them think it is going
to happen in two or three years' time. If it is down in Grand Bank, we do not
want to hear that Grand Bank is cancelled. In Grand Bank, the Minister of Health
says they are taking down the steel. I guess that means it is cancelled. He
would always say: Be upfront with people. Be honest with people. Deal with them
with integrity. Say what you are going to do and then go do it, and people will
respect you for it.
That is what has caused quite a bit of shock, actually, in the Province in
the last six months. That is what led to that kind of cartoon of the striker
saying: Sick leave, I guess I am going to fight for my sick leave because every
time I have seen this fellow for six months he has made me sick. That is not
very flattering. That is not very complimentary, but it is very telling, Mr.
Speaker, because you have someone who is willing to stand here, sit in this
Legislature and applaud when a statement is read saying that a project is
cancelled. Then, when he goes to look the people in the eye, who are actually
hoping that it would be built, he says: Never mind what you heard in the Budget,
it is not cancelled.
I do not know how the government can expect to continue to maintain a sense
of integrity and have any kind of support when you have a person who said they
would not play politics and all we seen before, to get elected, was playing
politics; playing to whatever crowd, in whatever place, either saying what
needed to be said or, better still, say nothing and let them think you are on
their side. That is probably sometimes better, I guess, if you are being
manipulative, than saying something because then your words do not come back to
haunt you. It is like the wage freeze. What about a wage freeze, the reporter
said? No one asked me, he said. I guess you can manipulate people and lead them
on just as much by saying nothing as you can sometimes by saying something. We
had that kind of circumstance. I think there are a lot of people, Mr. Speaker,
who are somewhat disappointed in him.
Let me conclude by saying this. Here is the sad part of the Budget and why I
moved the non-confidence motion, and suggesting that if anybody looked it -
because a lot of people in the Province, if they were in our position, if they
did not have party affiliations, and if they were not being told by the leader
of the party and by the whip that you must vote for this because, by the way,
you must vote for the Budget or the government falls on a vote of
non-confidence. Then we have to have an election. I do not think anybody on the
opposite side wants that again. I do not think many people in the Province want
it, quite frankly.
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, they do. People around the Province want one.
MR. GRIMES: Maybe they do, but again, I am sure the group opposite do not
particularly relish the thought of having an election because they did not vote
for the Budget. That will be explained to them - if it has not been already,
that will be explained to them, Mr. Speaker, that this is a confidence motion.
If it falls, then the government loses confidence and the Lieutenant-Governor
would suggest that maybe we should go back to the people and see who they would
have confidence in. I do not think they relish that thought. That is how serious
this debate is.
The problem is this: We have a Budget that says, by plan, we are going to
start by digging a hole. The hole is going to be 4,000 jobs deep. By plan, not
by accident, not by poor circumstance, but by plan. At least some of them
believe that it should happen even if they had the money. Then they are going to
have a Rural Secretariat based in St. John's. He is going to try to figure out
some way to get a handful of those 4,000 jobs back in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador some time - well, good luck. Good luck, because I am telling you, a lot
of these people who have worked at those jobs before will likely reincarnate
themselves just like the unelected minister, Dr. House. The unelected minister
put a new name on his old economic recovery commission, and he will probably
have his old buddies gathered around him in an office here in St. John's in
the not-too-distant future.
It was Tories, by the way, who condemned it back then and encouraged the
government, led by Brian Tobin, to abolish it and instead put some real
authority back in the regions through some economic development boards and had
people from the actual regions on them, and in some areas they have had some
tremendous successes - some tremendous successes.
The other piece, Mr. Speaker, they talk about the need for education. They
talk about the need for education as being one of the real linchpins for
economic development, and what do they do? They gut the investments in
education. Take out the teachers, for starters, after arguing consistently for
years that the loss of one teacher is one too many. So, take out the teachers.
In the post-secondary, cancel the most progressive debt relief program in the
country for students who have too much debt. We were the only Province to allow
a write-off of payments on your capital, on the principal, not just the
interest. So, what did they do? Cancelled that program.
AN HON. MEMBER: What?
MR. GRIMES: Oh, you did not know that was in the Budget?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. GRIMES: Maybe they are going to make a speech somewhere to students
saying it is not cancelled, but it is cancelled. That is cancelled. The debt
relief program, unique in the country, leading the way - worth, I think, on
average, somewhere between $130 or $150 a year to a student repaying their
loans, which is important to them - I guess it is not important to somebody who
says moving a licence fee from $140 to $180 does not matter. So, if you are
sitting there saying: Well, let's put a fee on a death certificate for the
first time in history, it does not matter. No matter to these poor students.
What is another $150? We will keep that and will not let the students have the
benefit.
Then they claw back the funding from the College of the North Atlantic and
expect them to improve their programming in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. In
rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where most of their nineteen campuses are, but
they are asked to take $2 million out of their budget, and another $2 million
out of the funding for the University. What are they going to do to fix it all?
What are they going to do to fix it all, though? They are going to hire some
buddy of theirs for $250,000 to do a study on post-secondary education, as to
how to make it more affordable and more accessible. They are going to take $150
from each one of the students paying off their loans, small mortgages, and they
are going to give $250,000 - wait until you see who the name is. It will be a
well-known name, well acquainted with the party opposite, who will go out and
spend a year doing a study and a White Paper on Post-Secondary Education. That
is the kind of Budget that they will be asked to vote for.
Mr. Speaker, let me just make one last comment. The same group on education,
the same group that said in the Blue Book - which is now the blueprint - savings
from education will definitely be reinvested in the system. Of course, they
always asked us ever since the reorganization in 1996-1997, they said: Are you
sure you are putting all the money back into education? We said: Yes, and more
besides. Every cent that was saved from restructuring, and more besides, was put
into education.
I saw a couple of them over there with that puzzled look, like that is the
first time they heard that. They probably believed the myth again that it was
not reinvested. It was reinvested, plus some extra money, every year because we
believed education was the real future for Newfoundland and Labrador.
What did they do with the $6 million they are going to save from the school
boards? The minister stands up and says it is going towards the debt. It is not
needed in education. That $6 million, by the way, could pay for all of the
secretarial time, all of the janitorial time, all of the bus drivers who were on
strike for nine weeks two years ago, all of the IT people they need for their
Information Technology capabilities in the schools. The total bill for
implementing that full report was $5 million. They have $6 million in their
grasp from savings and they are not going to use it. They are at the bargaining
table with the same group that was on strike for nine weeks two short years ago,
saying: I cannot guarantee you that you are going to have three hours a week for
a secretary in your school to do some correspondence on behalf of the teachers,
student council, and all the rest of it, and to handle a few phone calls if
there are no teachers off. In many of the schools, the teachers do not get these
so-called study periods and so on that they get in some of the bigger centres.
In many of the schools, all of the teachers are in all the classrooms all of the
time. There is no one t