Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 5 April 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 10)
2004-04-05
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 5, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 10
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we are pleased to have statements by the
following members: The Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for
Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Bay
of Islands, the Member for Trinity North, and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour
Grace.
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the many hundreds
of volunteers in the curling fraternity in our Province who were instrumental in
the successful World Curling Tour Event just completed at Mile One Stadium.
The Pharmassist Players Championship finished up this past weekend with the
John Morris Team from Alberta taking home a top prize of $43,000. Overall, there
was a total prize of $150,000 available to be won by the competing teams.
Eighteen teams and seventy-two players participated in this event with teams
coming from all over Canada, as well as the United States, Switzerland and
Scotland.
As well, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge our home grown teams of
Mark Noseworthy and Brad Gushue, who performed well during the tournament as
both teams finished in second place in their respective divisions during the
round robin.
Attendance at the event was fantastic with a new attendance record being set
with over 25,000 people enjoying the five days of curling. The playoff and final
matches were televised on National TV and helped showcase our Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SKINNER: By leave, please.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
Leave.
MR. SKINNER: - showcased our Province, our facility and our people. A
total of $2,000 was donated to the Children's Wish Foundation and a Junior
Curling Scholarship was also created from the event proceeds.
Congratulations to all members of the curling fraternity who participated in
making this a highlight for the Province and a memorable event for Mile One
Stadium. The event will return, Mr. Speaker, to Newfoundland and Labrador in
2005 and 2006.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate Mr. Jamie Pye, a native of Forteau in the
District of Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, for recently being named the recipient
of the 2003 Youth of the Year Award for Innovation. This award recognizes the
outstanding contribution he has made to the social and economic development of
the Province.
Mr. Pye combines graphic design with local artwork and his own photographs to
create his own successful small business, Shoreline Creations. Judges noted that
the unique setting of the Labrador Coast influences the art he creates. In
addition to being the operator of a successful home-based business, he is
employed as a field worker with SmartLabrador.
Mr. Pye, along with four other winners in the Province, were recognized
recently by Futures in Newfoundland and Labrador's Youth and received a $500
scholarship and a crystal iceberg Youth of the Year Award.
I would also like to congratulate the other four youth who were named as
winners in those categories: Sheldon Peddle of Corner Brook for Linkages -
recognizing achievements and partnership; Sonya Foley of Tilting for Expression
- recognizing artistic endeavours; Megan Stuckless of Botwood for Legacy -
recognizing the preservation of our heritage; Ashley Reid of New Harbour for
Vision - recognizing outstanding leadership skills.
I would like all hon. members to join me in extending our congratulations to
these outstanding young people in our Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate Michael Ryder, a native of Bonavista -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: - on his exceptional season in the National Hockey
League.
Mr. Speaker, it is great to see that Michael was able to translate his AHL
success from a year ago into NHL successes as a rookie with the Montreal
Canadiens this year.
At the end of the NHL regular season play yesterday, Michael ranked first
among rookies in points, first among rookies in goals, and second among rookies
in assists.
Some other players who have led rookie point scoring in years gone by include
names like Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Steve Yzerman.
Mr. Speaker, in Saturday's final game of the season, Michael scored a goal
and, in so doing, also tied a long-standing provincial sport's record held by
Tony White for the most goals scored by a Newfoundlander in a single NHL season.
Michael has been credited for his great play-making ability, his quick and
strong shot, his commitment to team defence and his effectiveness on the power
play. In fact, Mr. Speaker, these skills combined with Michael's numbers this
season have put him in contention for the Calder Trophy as the National Hockey
League's top rookie.
This is a tremendous accomplishment for Michael, and something I know his
family and friends in Bonavista, and indeed, all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians are extremely proud of.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly
to join with me today in congratulating Michael Ryder on his tremendous success
in the National Hockey League this season, and in wishing him continued success
in the playoffs and in his future hockey career.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 6, I had the pleasure of attending the HIS
Volunteer Fire Department's Annual Firefighters Ball.
The HIS fire department was started in 1983 and provides firefighting
services to the Towns of Hughes Brook and Irishtown Summerside.
At this event, several firefighters were recognized for their contribution to
the department and their community. Five of the founding members received
twenty-year Long Service medals, which include: Fire Chief Rick Parsons, Captain
William Parsons, firemen Alvin Loder, Kirk Brake and Danny Wheeler.
Other members recognized for their service were: Winston Anderson,
Firefighter of the Year; Garwin Parsons received the Premier's Award, and
Jamie Barrow received the award for Rookie of the Year.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to make mention of another group that attended the
event: the women who make up the HIS Firettes. This group has raised thousands
of dollars over the years to help support the fire department in purchasing much
needed firefighting equipment and deserves to be recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of this hon. House to join with me in
commending the members of the HIS fire department and indeed all volunteer
firefighters across the Province for their tremendous contribution to the
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate the Trinity Historical Society. On March 24,
they received the Manning Award in the provincial importance category for the
restoration of the Green Family Forge.
Mr. Speaker, the Manning Awards, created in 1993, recognize excellence in the
presentation of places like the Green Family Forge that have had such a
significant historical value in our Province. The Awards were established to
encourage the efforts of those organizations who work very hard to ensure the
survival of such structures.
Mr. Speaker, for six generations, the Green family had been blacksmiths in
Trinity, passing down their knowledge and expertise from father to son. The
forge currently holds approximately 1,500 artifacts from the family's long
history as blacksmiths dating back nearly 250 years. The tradition of the forge
continues today during the summer months as the Historic Society have employed a
full-time seasonal blacksmith to manufacture items of interest for visitors to
the area as well as to supply the local market.
Mr. Speaker, this award comes at a particularly significant time as this year
also marks the fortieth anniversary of the Trinity Historic Society. Having
recently had the pleasure of attending their fortieth celebration, I can assure
this House that these awards are well deserved for a group of individuals who
endeavour to ensure the survival of our historical places for generations to
come. This is the second award -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is the second award the Trinity Historical
Society has received for its restoration work on the forge since it was
recognized in 1991 as an historic structure by the Heritage Foundation of
Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1998 the society was awarded the Southcott Award
from the Newfoundland Historic Trust.
I ask members of this House to join with me today in congratulating the
Trinity Historical Society for the tremendous work that they do in preserving
the history of Trinity and also contributing to the Province as a whole, in
ensuring our history is not forgotten.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Kim
White, a student from Carbonear who has recently been selected to travel to
Ottawa to participate in the Forum for Young Canadians this April. Every year
some 550 students from across Canada take
part in this forum to experience
first-hand how our nation's government works. I believe that Ms White will
make an excellent ambassador for Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms White is very
active in her community, and is hard-working.
Not only will she be taking
part in the Forum for Young Canadians, but she is
also a member of the Baccalieu Trail Youth Council, a member of the RCMP Youth
Advisory Board, a member of the Key Club, which is a junior club of the Kiwanis,
and she takes
part in Futures in Newfoundland and Labrador's Youth. If that is
not enough, Ms White was also recently involved in Rural Expo 2003 and she is a
peer-helper at Carbonear-Collegiate High School.
Clearly, Ms White is a very dedicated member of her community and very
deserving of this opportunity to meet other students like herself across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending
congratulations to Ms White for being selected for this forum and our best
wishes in her endeavour.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This being again, unfortunately, a day in the continuation of the most
massive strike in the Province's history, I have some questions for the
Premier, and someone will answer on behalf of the government.
Mr. Speaker, isn't it true - and maybe the House Leader can answer - that
the Premier deliberately sought an invitation to be in Corner Brook today rather
than to be here dealing with the most massive strike - and questions about it -
in the Province's history?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier is Premier of this Province. He does not want to be confined
inside the overpass. That would be your first complaint. He has commitments in
his district, and to the people of this Province, and he is going to fulfil his
commitments to every person in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what the Finance Minister - who is, when the
one-man show is not here, supposedly, the chief negotiator for the Province - is
trying to suggest is that this was a long-standing commitment that the Premier
had in Corner Brook today, rather than what we know, that on Saturday the
Premier spent the time calling people in Corner Brook asking for an invitation
to be there today.
When the normal host declined - out of respect for the strikers - he called
his friends and asked them if they would organize a luncheon today so he would
not have to be here to answer questions when we have the most massive strike
that he has caused in the history of the Province, Mr. Speaker. Is this a
long-standing commitment? Mr. Speaker, is that what the Finance Minister is
trying to have us believe?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier of the Province called the President of NAPE on Friday and
indicated that he was available to meet him any time the weekend. He remained
until 12 midnight. The chief negotiator, I had in this building here until
midnight Sunday night and the phone never rang. We are prepared to sit down. In
fact, at two o'clock today, pretty well as I speak here, my negotiators will
be sitting to the table with Mr. Puddister and Mr. Lucas and their team to try
to get a resolution to this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the people of the Province will see through the charade that is
happening here today. We have the Premier who conveniently is not available to
answer questions and then we have the Finance Minister who is th chief
negotiator who will not answer direct questions put to him.
Mr. Speaker, he talked about the overpass. A Budget presented last week with
4,000 job cuts, a two-year wage freeze, major service cuts in health care,
education and all public services - this question, Mr. Speaker, for the
Government House Leader: There is a motion given that we won't adjourn at
five-thirty today nor at ten o'clock tonight. Are they so ashamed of this
Budget that they want us to be here in the nighttime because they want to
discuss it and debate under cover of darkness? Mr. Speaker, why are they trying
to close the House and have this debate happen in the nighttime instead of broad
daylight? Are they that ashamed of what they read last week in the Budget?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me correct, first of all, a release put
out by the Leader of the Opposition. He said today that we are trying to run the
House and run them out of time in the seventy-five hour budget debate. Mr.
Speaker, as an experienced parliamentarian the Leader of the Opposition would
know that the Finance Critic on her time right now doesn't not come out of the
seventy-five hours debate. On top of that, neither does his time, neither does
his Opposition House Leader's time, neither does any of their time.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the member opposite: There is a new
government in place, we have a serious and a large legislative agenda to put
forward, and I can assure the Leader of the Opposition this, that whether we
meet tonight, tomorrow night or every night up until June the cameras in this
House will be on to see your performance and ours, and we are not ashamed of
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what the people of the Province would know is that there is no
legislative agenda on our Order Paper in this Legislature. The only item is the
Budget which we have three or four months to debate and we gladly do so. They
want us here after dark, Mr. Speaker, because they are ashamed -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: - of what it is. None of them will speak to it, they are that
ashamed of what they have done.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the real question is this. Maybe they really are trying to
close the House so that the Premier can get down to Florida on Good Friday like
he planned all along. Is that the real circumstance, Mr. Speaker? Would he like
to give us a specific answer to that question, about what the real plans are and
why they are trying to have us here in the nighttimes when there is absolutely
no need of it. They are trying to take the place on their backs! Everybody knows
there is a new government and they do not like what they see, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that the House of
Assembly is somewhat theatrics and it has been proven in front of me today.
The Leader of the Opposition either knows, or the Opposition House Leader has
not told him, that, first of all, the House will close according to the
Parliamentary Calendar that you put in place; which will be Wednesday or
Thursday.
Secondly, I have also advised, as early as last week and again today, the
Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the NDP, that, yes, we do have a
legislative agenda. It will be provided for them over Easter in time so that
they can assess it, digest it and have a more informed debate in the House.
Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition this: Have you knowingly stood up and
indicated to the House something that you know not to be true, or has your
Opposition House Leader taken the time to advise you?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to have the answer.
It might be instructive to know that the calender that we all agreed to, this
House did not open on the scheduled time because the government was not ready.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Now they are trying to rush through items because they are
not ready, and now we find out that they do plan to close for a two-week break
for Easter, even if 20,000 people are still on the streets, rather than come
here every day and answer questions about it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me get to this question for the chief negotiator for the
government, the President of Treasury Board. The Premier who has taken himself
and put him in his position as the one-man show and will not let the Finance
Minister do his job as the chief negotiator has shown himself -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member now to finish his question.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
- showing himself to be a temperamental bully, so much so that the Globe
and Mail has even said: What we need to solve Newfoundland and Labrador's
fiscal problem requires a cool head, not a hot temper. When will the government,
through the chief negotiator, or the Premier if he does not have enough
manliness about him to do it, apologize to the people, apologize to the people
for being hot-headed and going out and saying: These people will stay out until
the cows come home?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: When are the people of the Province going to receive an
apology for that kind of hot-tempered, ill-measured, improper statement by the
Premier or the chief negotiator?
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 am not sure who is hot-tempered or misguided here today. When 20,000 are
out on the streets and trying to get an agreement, the only question he has is
about the Premier's travel
schedule and an apology. It is time to get on with
asking questions, trying to get people back to work, something constructive here
to get this resolution resolved!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the chief negotiator for the Province can finally get the one-man show
out of the way. Maybe he has gotten him out of the way today deliberately so he
might get to do his own job because the Premier has made a complete and utter
and total mess of it to date, starting on January 5.
Mr. Speaker, and something constructive - when is the President of Treasury
Board going to get his boss, the one-man show, the Premier, to stop
grandstanding out on the picket lines attempting to divide and conquer the
unions? Doesn't he acknowledge that is only making it virtually impossible to
get an agreement, that kind of grandstanding? When is he going to rein him in
and do the job that he is there to do as the Finance Minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The chief negotiator is now in the process of meeting with the President of
NAPE and CUPE on behalf of this Province to try to get an agreement here. We
will make every effort to clearly articulate our position to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and to anyone who asks. We want to make sure our
position is clear. It is unambiguous there and anytime I am asked, and I have
been asked by telephone today by people and members of the union who called my
office, I am going to make clear the position of our Province so the public and
the people know. I will respond to that, as I should do, to make sure what is on
the table here in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, surely the President of Treasury Board does not expect anyone in
the Province to believe that a civil servant who is now speaking to the union
reps is not going to come back to the President of Treasury Board or the Premier
to get direction. He is trying to suggest that he is not the chief negotiator. I
know he is not, because the Premier is. That is part of the problem, Mr.
Speaker.
The issue is this - the whole point is - which position seems to be the
problem. It is almost like a game of, Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Last week
it was zero, zero, two and three, and no concessions.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to finish his question.
MR. GRIMES: Today it is zero, zero, one and two, plus all the concessions
are back on the table. What is your final answer? How is anybody supposed to
know? What kind of a game are you playing out there?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The final answer will be worked out at the negotiating table, not pull the
rug on the whole negotiations like he was used to doing when he was in the
position.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier - I expect upon the advice of his chief negotiator,
the President of Treasury Board - keeps asking the union members to put it to a
vote. What would they put to a vote today? Would it be what they talked about
last week, what is in The Telegram today, what is out there with Danny's
signature on it, the same as the signature that said no layoffs during the
election in full-page ads? What would they put to a vote? Don't they realize
that tactic of trying to divide and conquer is part of the problem instead of
being part of the solution? When are they going to get back to some real respect
and dignity that the Premier talked about at the NAPE convention, and deal with
the leadership and try to get a deal?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We made clear to the negotiating team with the unions exactly what our
position is. What they want to put to a vote of their membership, they will
determine -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: He should know that the union leaders will determine what
they want their membership to vote on. I can only say that we will make it
unambiguous, quite clear and in writing what our offer to them is, and if we so
desire we will make that available to the public so they will know too.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again this government, with the one-man show, obsessed with
one-upmanship, and his chief negotiator, is trying to now suggest that a
bureaucrat is the chief negotiator. They say, put it to a vote when the people
do not know what it is on any one day what they are supposed to put to a vote.
You have to convince, Mr. Speaker, the leadership, not try to force them to do
those things.
Will they, and will the Finance Minister, recommend to the one-man show that
the Budget that they are so ashamed of, that they will not even talk about and
debate about in the daylight, will you put that to a vote with the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition should know that budgets are debated in this
House, and they will be debated in this month and they will be running into next
month. Some time in May it will be put to the people of this House, who are
elected to represent the people of the Province for a four-year mandate, and we
will carry out the responsibilities that we were given.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and
Status of Women.
Now that the Premier has made such a mess of bargaining with the unions that
represent public sector employees, I ask the minister: Will she now step in and
see if she can have more success in solving this strike? Can she solve the
problem that the Premier has created?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at this time it would be my wish, and the wish of
the government, that a consensus and a negotiation would continue until we reach
an agreement with the union.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: A supplementary for the Minister of Labour in this Province.
Does she see herself as having any constructive role in solving this strike,
which is a role the Minister of Labour normally takes on? When is she going to
do her job?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as part of the collective bargaining process,
mediators from the Labour Relations Agency have been involved in the process for
the whole time and we will continue to be involved as required to bring this to
some agreement.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess the hon. minister is washing her hands completely of the problem we
have in this Province today.
My final supplementary to the minister is: Has the minister apologized to the
leaders of NAPE and CUPE for the Premier's actions in attempting to break the
unions last Friday, and if she has not, will she apologize for his attempt at
union busting in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact that our Premier is quite
capable of speaking for himself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe I can pry an answer out of the Minister of Finance and the President of
Treasury Board.
Mr. Speaker, this government has shown that they have no regard for the
collective bargaining process. It appears we are headed back to the Peckford
days of the 1980s when union leaders were jailed and union members were forced
back to work.
Can the minister deny reports -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, can the minister deny reports that he has
instructed his officials to prepare back-to-work legislation to force strikers
back to work?
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 would ask the hon. member, you know, to try to get her facts straight and
hopefully her research will be a bit better. I can certainly deny it because we
haven't asked them to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would ask hon. members of this House to take note of today's date, April
5, because in a series of intimidation moves by this government since January 5,
and as recently as a news conference last week, the Premier threatened the
unions when he indicated that a legislated agreement would be less beneficial to
the unions than the offer on the table last week.
Will the minister confirm for this House today that back-to-work legislation
contains contract language that indeed has been changed to implement a wage
freeze and strip current benefits.
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.
She probably did not hear very well the response to my first question. If she
is on a fishing trip she is fishing in the wrong place, because I have not
instructed anybody to prepare any back to work with any terms or conditions in
it, and I am not aware of any that is in the process, so I say to the minister,
go back fishing again for some other reason.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, we have heard that the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board has not told his officials to go prepare that
back-to-work legislation, but has the Premier of this Province instructed his
officials to prepare that back-to-work legislation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will certainly endeavour to get an answer. You will have to ask -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: You will have to ask the Premier what he has told his
officials. I can tell you, I have not told officials. I am not aware of any
specifics, I can tell you. The hon. member is once again on a fishing trip,
because she wants to see -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I have asked for some quietness. It is not possible to hear the answer, if we
have too much noise in the House.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member seems to be more intent on provoking things rather than
getting a resolution to this strike. They do not want a resolution to this. We
want to see it; we want to deal with collective bargaining and deal with this at
the table. We do not want to see the possibility of having to legislate back, as
happened when you sat on this side of the House and you were the government of
the day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is for the Premier but, in his absence, the Minister of
Finance, who today has been talking about being constructive. Will he
acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that so far his government and the Premier have been
anything but constructive in dealing with the public sector strike, whether
going behind the backs of the leadership directly to the members, trying to
discredit the leadership of the unions publicly, and insinuating that union
members in this Province would seek to choose to use violence against family
members of the government? All of these things, Mr. Speaker, are totally
destructive of the process of trying to get an agreement with our public sector
workers. Will he not acknowledge that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We will acknowledge that when we are asked to clarify what we put on the
table, we will do that. We will make that aware. Whether it is by telephone or
whether someone asks on walking into this building, we will clarify our position
and that is the right.
I would like to say that the Premier has not, in anyway, indicated. He said
it is a price that his son paid because he is Premier. He did not indicate that
anybody, in any union whatsoever, had anything to do with it. It is very unfair
for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to try to inflame the situation when
we are trying to get a settlement here in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this is a government and leadership that took an
offer off the table on March 31 and then insisted that the members be allowed to
vote on it. That is the kind of constructive, so-called, behaviour that is going
on.
Mr. Speaker, now that the first round of negotiations has totally failed as a
result of the actions of this government and bargaining has commenced again,
will this government now take these concessions off the table - that the members
of this union have already been out on strike for years and years ago - and
start to negotiate fairly and put a fair offer on the table that will try to end
this strike, and not try to provoke, prolong it and keep people out on the
streets until the cows come home, to use the Premier's phrase?
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.
Today on the Open Line program I clarified some of the things that were
mentioned on the NAPE Web site which do not accurately reflect the position that
we offered to union members until midnight. Numerous things are inaccurate in
that Web site. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to articulate to the
people exactly what our position is and as we provided to them in writing on
that night. That is what we want to do, get the truth out. We are prepared to
sit down and deal with the issues back at the negotiating table here, but we
want what we have offered portrayed accurately to the people and we want to see
it portrayed accurately to the membership of those respective unions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: A very simple question, Mr. Speaker: Is this government and
is this minister prepared to put an end to concession bargaining and put a fair
offer on the table?
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: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to get a fair settlement for
the people of the Province. Currently listed on NAPE's Web site are conditions
that are not even in the past agreement. Extra concessions above and beyond what
they currently have they want us to agree to. We are not prepared to jeopardize
the Province in areas of demands they currently do not have. We are prepared to
discuss other issues and hopefully get some mutual ground on issues. Some are
not being articulated clearly at all. We were prepared.
One of the issues mentioned said: we will not give a guarantee that we will
not roll the Provincial Pension Plan altogether. We gave that guarantee to them,
Mr. Speaker. We want that articulated properly to the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: In the allocated time, we have room for one question by the
Member for Labrador West. In the scheduled four minutes, there is about half a
minute left.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment,
and Responsible for the Status of Women. I want to ask the minister: If, in this
Province, under our current legislation there was a strike at Abitibi Price or
the Iron Ore Company of Canada or Wabush Mines or some other private enterprise
and management went to the picket line talking directly to the workers, under
our legislation would you consider that to be an unfair labour practice?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in this House of Assembly
I do not feel comfortable commenting on speculation only.
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 Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs. Minister, Tuesday's Budget was full of betrayal and broken
promises made to the people of Labrador, but minister, nowhere was the hurt and
betrayal felt more than that by the youth in Labrador when you and your
government failed to commit funds to build an auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose
Bay. I ask the minister: Will he tell this House and the people in Labrador why
he and his government have betrayed the youth in Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member for Torngat Mountains knows and the people of Labrador know -
if they do not know, then it has certainly been articulated publicly by me and
by others since the Budget was brought down last week - that the Mealy Mountain
Auditorium project has been deferred. It has not been cancelled. This government
is fully committed to having an auditorium for the people and the youth of all
of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and we will see that happens in due course.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Deferred, Mr. Speaker, and probably deferred until the cows
come home.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, this government continues to betray the people
of Labrador. There was no announcement of the Premier's Office in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, no senior position with the Department of Natural Resources
for Labrador West, and certain parts of the Trans-Labrador Highway that will not
be cleared during the winter.
I ask the minister again why he and his government continue to betray the
people in Labrador, especially the youth?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and
Labrador Affairs.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly have not betrayed the people of Labrador. We have committed to
the priorities of the people of Labrador. We have committed to Phase III of the
Trans-Labrador Highway, we have to the Mealy Mountain auditorium, Mr. Speaker.
As the former minister knows, in the context of every departmental budget there
is always opportunity for the Premier's Office to be put up there, or a senior
official from the Department of Mines and Energy, and all of these things will
be dealt with in due course in the confines of the Budget that is already laid
out. Where positions are staffed in the short term or in the long term is
something that happens within the department's decision making.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order arising from
one of the answers given in Question Period by the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board when he was answering a question from the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, talking about the events, the unfortunate events, that
gave rise to the comment: They will stay out until the cows come home.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance suggested that at no time did the
Premier suggest that union members had anything to do with this. The direct
quote in the media is: I believe that this is a price my son has paid for my
political involvement.
What we need, Mr. Speaker, is not inappropriate excuses for an intemperate
and inappropriate - we need an apology, especially in light of the fact that my
information today is that the investigation is complete, the charges have been
laid, and it does not involve a member of either one of the unions that are on
strike.
When are we going to get the apology, Mr. Speaker, instead of these weak
excuses in trying to explain away the improper, inappropriate actions taken by
the Premier of the Province? When are we going to get the apology? That is the
real question, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the point of order, first of all, for the record, last week at a press
conference the Premier was asked about the situation, to which he responded.
Secondly, he indicated publicly, immediately, that he was in no way alleging
that the union or anybody associated with it had -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I had the presence to sit and listen to the
point of order by the Leader of the Opposition in quiet, and I would appreciate
the same courtesy by him and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. The second
point is this: The Premier said exactly last week that he in no way alleged that
any member of the union had anything to do with that. He said that publicly.
What we are witnessing here today is the type of lowball politics that we have
become accustomed to, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is this -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask that members co-operate and we will be able to hear the presentation by
the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The fact of the matter is that the assertion and the point of order that the
Leader of the Opposition has raised has more to do with political grandstanding
than a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is important to know that the statement that may have been made by
the Premier, that he did not believe that someone from the union was involved in
that particular incident involving his son, was followed by a warning that if
any union member harmed a member of his family or his caucus or their
families.... That was, what I suggest, an insinuation that union members - why
would you warn people if you did not believe that this was being contemplated or
might be contemplated by union members? That is the point that is being made,
Mr. Speaker. That was the inflammatory remark for which the people and the union
leadership have been looking for an apology.
The minister is suggesting that I said something entirely different than
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
While the circumstances giving rise to the point of order are indeed
unfortunate, the Chair has to rule that there is no point of order. There is,
however, a difference of
interpretation of an event that has occurred by hon.
members of the House.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS there are unfortunately 20,000 public service employees on a legal
strike resulting in serious service disruptions; and
WHEREAS there was no consultation with their elected representatives, as
promised by the Premier in his address to the NAPE convention in September 2001;
and
WHEREAS there has been very little real negotiation between government, as
the employer, and the union negotiator; and
WHEREAS the Premier has made threatening remarks regarding the strikers being
punished and left off the job "until the cows come home"; and
WHEREAS the Premier has engaged personally in unfair labour practices by
passing the elected leaders and the negotiators in an attempt to divide and
conquer the unions;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the government
to return to meaningful negotiations with professional negotiators in an attempt
to reach a mutually agreed new contract; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the Premier to
reinstate his commitment to respect the bargaining process and not use the
Legislature to impose an agreement.
That is the Private Members' Resolution, Mr. Speaker, for Wednesday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS the government committed in their election platform to reduce ferry
rates to the equivalent of road travel; and
WHEREAS the recent Budget saw increases of 25 per cent instead;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the government
to recommit to its stated plan and log out a time line for when the people of
the Province can expect the plan to be implemented.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will move the
following private member's motion:
WHEREAS a strong and dedicated civil service is an important part of
maintaining and improving both the social and economic life of people in this
Province;
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly does not agree with a downgrading
of the civil service in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to present a petition from constituents of mine in the Cartwright-L'anse
au Clair area. It is with regard to the marine services, in particular the
Labrador Coastal marine services that operate between Cartwright and Goose Bay.
Mr. Speaker, the people of my district still do not have a decision from this
government on what the configuration of marine services will be for this coming
year. They have implemented, of their own doing, a consultant's report to look
at the entire service in this region and to look at what will be supplied to the
people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for the people who are watching, I want to explain this
because even hon. members on the other side -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is altogether too much noise from my left. I ask if the hon. member
could present her petition in relative silence and we could all hear the prayer
and the words that she wants to communicate.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the Member for Lake Melville would like to hear what I have to say.
Mr. Speaker, for the public to understand this issue, in Labrador we have
three particular ships that provide a service to the people. We have a freight
service that operates from Lewisporte to the North Coast to Nain. We have a
passenger service and freight service that operates from Cartwright to the North
Coast to Nain, and we have a Labrador ferry that operates between Cartwright and
Goose Bay.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I believe that there is an agenda by
the Minister of Transportation to take that ferry, that Labrador ferry, and move
it back to his hometown in his own constituency in Lewisporte. Mr. Speaker, do
you know why I feel that way and the reason my constituents have to go out and
take names on a petition to come to this government to try and get a decision on
what kind of marine service they will have this year? It is absolutely
unbelievable that this could happen.
Mr. Speaker, we feel the report that has been submitted to this government,
which they will not release to anyone in my district, will not release to the
people of the Province, does contain recommendations that support the existing
service, but we feel because of comments that have been made by the Minister of
Transformation, right on the date of his election, in his own paper, in his own
district, saying that he wants to boost the economy there and he will do it by
bringing back the ferry to Lewisporte. Mr. Speaker, I am asking, I am pleading
today on behalf of one of the ruralist areas in this district, one of the
regions that needs this service more than anywhere in the Province, for this
government to let the Labrador ferry be a Labrador ferry for the people who live
in that area.
Mr. Speaker, it is because of decisions that we have made in marine services
in my district that we have allowed the economy to grow.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I cannot even hear myself. The Member
for Placentia is consistently -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
Again, I ask that we show some -
MS JONES: May I have leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents in
my district. Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:
WHEREAS all other residents of Labrador, except Labrador West, travel to
Goose Bay for medical services at a cost of $40 return airfare; and
WHEREAS residents of Labrador West have to pay nearly $500 to access the same
services.
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government
to amend this discriminatory policy immediately so as all residents of Labrador
West can avail of the same medical services at the same cost as any other
resident living in Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible situation that has been going on for far too
long. People in my district who are referred to Goose Bay for CT scans, or other
services not available in Labrador West, have to pay through the nose for what
everybody else in Labrador gets for $40 return. I say to the government: Do you
believe that is fair, because people in my district certainly do not? People in
my district do not.
For the last year we have been arguing and fighting for us to be treated the
same as people in other areas. I brought it to the previous administration for a
year. It was not acted on there and to date, with six months into this new
administration, there is still no action on this point, but it is very
important. I do not see why we should be treated differently. There is 600
kilometres of gravel road between Labrador West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
Driving is not an option, Mr. Speaker. We have all heard the stories over the
years about accidents that take place on that road. The only sensible way for
people with medical conditions is to be able to fly, but in order to do that,
Mr. Speaker, it has to be within a reasonable rate because people do not
deserve, living in one area of Labrador, to be treated differently than people
in other areas.
Mr. Speaker, this petition says people travelling to Goose Bay from anywhere
else in Labrador. I would like to point out there is a difference there because,
as I understand it, people in some areas of Labrador can travel and fly to St.
Anthony for the same price.
Mr. Speaker, Labrador West is signaled out. We are being discriminated
against.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is a lot of dialogue across the House, you might say. Again, it is very
difficult for the member to be able to present his petition when the noise level
is as high as it is.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we are calling upon government to treat people in
Labrador West the same as people in other parts of Labrador; not carry on the
discriminating policy that currently exists. All we are asking for, Mr. Speaker,
is not special treatment, we are only asking to be treated the same.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 1, that the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board
has already moved that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of
the government.
We are looking forward to a wonderful and eloquent afternoon by the Member
for Grand Falls- Buchans and the critic for Finance and critic for Treasury
Board.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, for one, will be here til the cows come home.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Had I thought about it earlier, Mr. Speaker, I could have
worn my udderly' ridiculous cow costume.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: This is really no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. What I need
to talk about here today is that the people of this Province are - they are
certainly dismayed, that is an understatement. I was out to my district again
this weekend, and everywhere I went, whether it was in Church or the supermarket
or on the street, people are feeling pretty down.
AN HON. MEMBER: They are outraged.
MS THISTLE: They are outraged. They are feeling like they are lost, they
are hopeless, they do not know what their situation - what happened, this
feeling that has now captured the Province's attention.
This time last year people in the Province were happy. They were looking
forward to another big summer of tourism, a lot of work underway, a lot of
school construction, a lot of health care improvements, a lot of housing starts,
a lot of car sales. There was a general feeling of optimism in the air. I don't
know what has happened with this new government. They have pulled the blind.
They have pulled the blind on our economy.
The biggest shock, I think, I got was yesterday when I came out of church in
Grand Falls-Windsor. I went up over Hospital Hill and I saw the sign that was
erected by the Central West Health Care Board for announcing our new cancer
clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, and right across it in spray paint, blue spray
paint, was: Cancelled by Danny. I asked the strikers, when did that sign get
defaced like that, and they said, when they came on duty in the morning it was
there, on Sunday morning, Palm Sunday: Our Cancer Clinic was Cancelled by Danny.
I looked up the correspondence that had made the case for the cancer clinic
and I said to myself, there are a lot of things we can do with this budget, and
it is all about making choices. When I stood on my feet last Thursday I talked
about the Premier's office he is going to have in Ottawa, starting off with
$375,000 for the first year. Of course, that will snowball because once he gets
up there, or someone gets up there, some political patronage person gets up
there, they will want to expand on that, it won't be good enough.
Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars in the Budget for the Premier's
office, and I looked at what the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor would
cost. They had fund-raised, they had a contribution from the Newfoundland and
Labrador Cancer Foundation and they also had the sale of the Carmelite House. At
this time last year, when interest rates were 5 per cent at the bank, they
were looking at a loan of $3.2 million. That has probably been reduced since
then because of more fund-raising and interest rates have come down.
Even if we do deal with the figure from last year, do you know what the
payments would be on that? Does anybody know what it would cost to pay off that
cancer clinic in ten years? Based on last year's interest rate on the amount
they wanted last year, it would cost $421,000 a year to bring that cancer
treatment to the people who need it most.
This government has chosen to spend a starting figure of $350,000 a year to
put an office in Ottawa - can you imagine! - when we know that there are so many
people, all in Central Newfoundland, who require this cancer clinic and need it
and want it and should have it. They should have the dignity and good service.
The nurses in the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor are performing beyond measure.
They are giving such excellent treatment to the cancer patients, but to think
that for another $50,000 a year, can you imagine? Rather than have that Premier's
office up in Ottawa the people in Grand Falls-Windsor and Central Newfoundland
could have a cancer clinic.
That is all about making choices. It was interesting to see the
PricewaterhouseCoopers book. It was entitled - where is their title? It is here
somewhere. Directions, Choices and Tough Choices. That is the independent study
the new government had and that is how they tailor-made their Budget, based on
that study. Now, for $50,000 more a year we could have the cancer clinic in
Grand Falls-Windsor.
I would like to say to the members opposite: Who, across the way here, would
stand up as being the member of the new Tory government and say that the office
in Ottawa is more important than the cancer clinic? Come on everybody, jump on
their feet. Everybody jump up. Let me see now, who would jump up across there
and say: If I was in the Cabinet, or if I was talking to the Premier this is
what I would do, I would say go for the cancer clinic; forget about the Ottawa
office. I do not see anybody rushing to get up on their feet though, do I? I do
not see anybody rushing to get to their feet. No, sir, the silence is deafening.
You will not hear any cow hoofs there trying to jump up or anything.
This is ridiculous. We could have had our cancer clinic. We should have our
cancer clinic and I, for one, will be fighting for that cancer clinic. It might
be a bump in the road but I can tell you one thing for sure, that the people of
this Province are not going to sit down when it comes to making choices and
agree to an office for the Premier in Ottawa when he will not have a cancer
clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor for the people who need it the most.
I also stood on my feet last week when one of our members brought forward a
resolution on health care. I said that there is a disease in this Province that
is attacking the eyesight of our seniors. I cannot remember the exact name of it
but it was some kind of macular degenerative disease that attacks seniors over
the age of fifty-five. I also said that the St. John's Health Care
Corporation, if they had $450,000 to buy the equipment, that could prevent at
least 120 of our Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from going blind.
Now I ask this new government, who is in the business of making tough
choices: Will anybody stand on their feet from over there on the other side
today and tell me what is most important, the Premier's office in Ottawa, or
preventing 120 of our seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador from going blind?
Will anybody stand on their feet and tell me what is the most important today?
No, not one. No, not one. No, not one.
I am also going to talk today about an issue that is facing all of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I will get back to health care issues because health
care has always been number one in this Province, although I do not know from
what I seen in this Budget Book this time.
The new government had always blamed us, the former administration, for
putting one-time money, as they called it, towards health care projects. As a
result, we had a ballooning deficit. Well, let me ask the members opposite, the
new government with the new approach, who stood on the fence or sat on the fence
- it is a wonder they did not fall over or cause injury, but they were the same
ones who were on their feet everyday saying: We have to do something about that
doctors' strike. Yet, they never came out and they never said: Go pay the
doctors what they need to keep them here. But, they did not say not to pay them.
Today they are saying that we have a ballooning deficit. So what is it? It is
all about making the right decisions. I can tell you one thing, when it comes to
health care I think we have made all the right decisions.
When you have people lined up for cardiac surgery - I saw the current Finance
Minister over here almost having a heart attack, his blood pressure was that
high. He was like a red beet, right in this place where I am standing today. He
was putting forward the reason why we should be putting money into the health
care system; so we would not have people lined up and dying in the streets
because they could not get their cardiac surgery. Now that same minister is over
there today saying we have the biggest deficit ever recorded in history.
I want to bring to attention something that I seen on Out of the Fog. I think
it might have been last Thursday night. I could stand to be corrected on that.
When the Premier of this Province said that we have the largest deficit ever
recorded in this Province's history.
MR. REID: I think Tom Rideout was there when that happened. He was part
of the Cabinet for sure.
MS THISTLE: Well I do not know, this would have been - I think when I
look back over the figures for finance - would he have been around in 1983-1984?
MR. REID: Definitely, in the Cabinet.
MS THISTLE: In the Cabinet, okay. That would be the Minister of
Transportation and Works, is it?
Anyway, the Premier was asked a question by the interviewer, and his reply
was: It is the largest deficit ever recorded in this Province's history. Well,
let me tell the viewing audience out there today that one of the biggest
deficits ever recorded in this Province's history was 1983-1984 and that
particular deficit was $326 million.
I think it is also very right and very fair to compare apples to apples and
oranges to oranges. Now, if you were to convert that deficit of 1983, $326
million, to today's money, what would you have? You would have $538 million.
Just a raw cash deficit, nothing else included. Just a raw cash deficit. I think
what the people of this Province are finding out through the media and other
ways is that there is an education process going on here in this Province. Our
Minister of Finance has conveniently tried to muddy the waters. All he talks
about now is the cash deficit, where a year ago all he talked about was the
accrual deficit. All the new government is talking about is the cash deficit.
They are talking about a cash deficit of $362 million. They are making a
commitment to the voters in this Province that they are going to get rid of the
cash deficit in the next four years. Well now, let me tell you something, there
is nothing being said about the accrual deficit. The accrual deficit is the
entire deficit of the Province's debt; long-term debt. I can tell you, that
has been growing since Confederation, and without divine intervention of Ottawa
there will be no way that the long-term debt of this Province will be cleared
up. So, they really, under false pretenses, left the impression with the voters
of this Province that they were going to kill the deficit in four years, but the
only thing they are trying to kill in the next four years is the cash deficit.
In other words, what we overspend on the year-to-year basis.
It is like I said last week, if you have a household budget of $1,500 and you
spend $1,700, you already have $200 of an overdraft. Well, they are going to try
to kill that overdraft in the next four years. They are not the least bit
worried about the long-term debt because they know full well that they are never
going to pay it off. Even if they waited until the cows came home, they would
never pay off the long-term debt. I think it is important for the people of our
Province to know, that the only thing they are trying to pay off is the cash
deficit.
I want to talk, Mr. Speaker, about that.
The Minister of Finance titles his - the tough medicine that he had to dish
out to the people of this Province, he is talking about responsible choices. Let
me tell you that there is a proposal going forward in Grand Falls-Windsor
concerning our school board out there. This government never had the decency to
come out and say that they were closing down the school board office for
District 5. All they did, Mr. Speaker, was provide layoff slips for everybody.
No answers to any questions.
Everybody knows that Grand Falls-Windsor is in the centre of this Province.
If anybody is my age, or a little bit younger, they can remember the
Trans-Canada Highway going through our Province. Remember the slogan, Finish The
Drive In Sixty-Five?
The centre of our Province is Pearson's Peak. Pearson's Peak is to the
west of Grand Falls-Windsor, between Grand Falls-Windsor and Badger. That is the
centre of this Province. It does not matter that Grand Falls-Windsor, the
Exploits Valley School Board - it is not even referred to as that now; it is
called the Baie Verte, Central, Connaigre School Board, District 5 - it makes no
difference that they have just taken over a school that was closed out during
school reform. They have renovated it so they can hold teacher development
conferences in there. They had the parking capacity, they are within two to
two-and-a-half hours of all schools in the surrounding region, and they can
deliver personal development to seventy-five schools from where they are
situated. It does not matter that all of those renovations have been done. They
have the wiring for the computer set up for training. Everything is ideal for
providing conferences, delivering professional development, and reaching all of
the schools in that geographic area. It does not matter that they have all that
in place and are ready to go. They have all now received their layoff notices.
My understanding is that they are looking at making that board office central in
Gander. Gander is not central, by the way, for anyone who would like to have a
history lesson in geography today. I am also hearing that the current office in
Gander is much smaller, unable to accommodate professional development delivery,
and would have to be renovated at considerable cost.
Is this what the new government are going to do when they say responsible
decisions, to save money? Is this what they are going to do, I ask the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador? It makes perfect sense to have a board office that is
in the centre of all the schools that you are serving.
I would like to ask the Member for Windsor-Springdale, and also the Member
for Lewisporte, who is the Minister of Transportation, Works and Aboriginal
Affairs, and the Member for Baie Verte, who is the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation: Are they satisfied to take that school board out of Grand
Falls-Windsor and put it out in Gander, at a considerable cost money wise to the
taxpayers of this Province, and a loss to their constituents and also a great
loss to the most important people, the students, who expect people in the board
office to be working for them? Can you imagine the distance that will have to be
travelled from Gander to all points west and in between, and the fact that Grand
Falls-Windsor has their own school, their brand new school? It was not used for
very long, but it was renovated and turned over to the board to be used as a
board office. All of the activities that are now able to take place in Grand
Falls- Windsor, in that board office, that board will now be closed up,
abandoned, and everything moved to Gander at more cost to the taxpayers of this
Province.
I would ask those three members that I just mentioned to stand in their
place. I ask them: Do they agree with government's decision to do this? Again,
absolutely nobody is hopping to their feet. In other words, what they are saying
by not speaking is that they agree with the move to take the school board office
out of Grand Falls-Windsor, at a considerable inconvenience and a considerable
cost to the people who use it the most, a loss of forty jobs for Grand
Falls-Windsor, so they can put it in Gander, which now has a smaller office out
there for the school board, that will require massive renovations, and the
employees alone will have to travel a greater distance, at a greater cost to
government. Now, if you call that responsible decision making, there is
something wrong here. There is definitely something wrong. That is one thing
that this government wants to do.
They want to do the same thing with health boards in this Province. I am
proud to be in a district - I am from the Central West Health Care Board, and it
has one of the best records out of all the boards in the Province for doing good
work and coming in within budget. Now I am hearing that the same idea is going
to happen with school boards and hospital boards. Now I am hearing that the same
idea is going to happen with school boards and hospital boards. It is too early
to tell on hospital boards. I know the people are out there working on it,
directors in hospital boards, but it is not so current yet as what we have been
hearing about school boards. Now, if you call that a new approach to economic
development, I know why the people in this Province are furious. Because all of
the social programs, all of the good things, all of the values that we have
cherished for so long are being dismantled before our eyes, and for what reason?
For what reason? I am seeing
article after
article in the newspapers around the
Province, and people are saying, What is happening to this new government? They
have a zero approach to economic development and they are expecting the taxpayer
to bear the brunt of every financial woe that is out there.
I was looking at a column on the weekend by Bob Benson, and he said,
"The budget does little for morale in a Province which has an unemployment
rate stuck at 16 per cent... During that time, more than 40,000 Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians voted with their feet on the future of this Province...".
You know, that is true. Last year we had the most significant turnaround in
out-migration. In fact, we eliminated out-migration altogether. What this new
government is trying to do today is bring back out-migration. They have said to
young people in our Province: Do not stay here. Get your education and run. We
have nothing here for you. There will be no.... Let me see, how many years does
it take - 4,000 jobs? There will be no jobs open. Four thousand jobs will be
closed off probably for the next ten years in the public service here in this
Province.
I was looking at the document, Newfoundland and Labrador Fiscal Review ,
by Hugh Mackenzie. That was a document, an audit that the union membership here
in this Province had asked for. Hugh Mackenzie is an economic consultant and a
research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He worked
for more than thirty years. There is no political affiliation, to the best of my
knowledge. He has done papers for almost every agency in Canada, an objective
independent look at the provinces' finances. This is one of the questions that
he raised. He said: Faced with the same facts, we could just as easily be asking
a different question. What do we need to do to be able to afford the public
services we need? But if you ask the wrong question, you will always get the
wrong answer.
So, what this government is trying to do is download the Province's
financial problems on the backs on our public sector workers.
It says: Neither public spending nor public sector employees compensation can
legitimately be said to have caused the Province's current fiscal problems.
The primarily cause of Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal problems is a
weakness in the Province's revenue base.
That is simply what it is, a weakness in the Province's revenue base; but,
if you look back to last year and this former Administration, of which I was a
part, we predicted that we would have a deficit of $286 million. In actual fact,
we ended up with a deficit of $197 million. That says a lot about the way people
were reacting in Newfoundland and Labrador to our economy. That tells us that
they had a lot of confidence in our economy, but what confidence do the people
of our Province have in this new government's measures that they put out a few
days ago? I can tell you, I have not heard too many that were in agreement with
it. I have not found any in my district, I can tell you that, and from the phone
calls that I am receiving as the critic for Finance, I have not heard any good
news or any agreement to it.
The funny thing about it, or the unusual thing about it, was, this report
that was done by Hugh Mackenzie, that itself agreed to the very figures that the
Department of Finance and Treasury Board had given to - also, the
PricewaterhouseCoopers report. I think what is interesting, what Mr. Hugh
Mackenzie said, is that the current new government have no confidence in their
ability to generate new sources of revenue for this Province in the way of
economic development. That is clear enough, because I was saying here last week
that if you look at the provincial government's booklet on the economy
forecast, that says it all. When you can start off a new government and a new
mandate and you can tell the people of this Province to forget about starting a
new business because, guess what? housing starts are about to decline,
population is going to decline, employment is going to grow by only half of what
is was in previous years.
If you are going to leave that message out there with the population, when
you got elected saying that you had a new approach and new economic development
ideas, right off the bat you are going to say: Well, look here, this is what is
really going to happen. That does not say much about a new approach for a new
government.
How can anybody get interested in starting a new business in this Province
based on the Budget that the new government brought down last week? I do not
think there is going to be any excitement out there, from what I am hearing. In
fact, it is going to lead to collapsing our economy. I do not think the people
are going to stand for it.
Now, I have heard exaggerations of what actually happened with the advocacy
group that was at the Confederation Building here yesterday, but I think maybe
on tonight's news we will really hear and see what did happen. If people are
prompted enough by their own initiative to say that there is a problem here with
this new government, they are not going to sit back and they are not going to
take it. They are going to say, I am not going to sit around and have our
economy wiped out from in front of our own very eyes, when everything was going
so good. People were feeling good about their situation, and all of a sudden
this new government comes in and pulls the rug from under their feet and there
is nothing only doom and gloom. We saw that yesterday when Mr. Bill Kelly
organized, in haste, in only two or three days, an avenue for people to come,
just ordinary people, and discuss how they were feeling about the new provincial
Budget.
People came out, and I guess there is some disagreement on the numbers. I
cannot say; I was not there myself. I was driving out from Grand Falls-Windsor
yesterday afternoon. What I can say is what I heard on the media, and if half a
dozen people come out and draw attention to this problem, there is a problem.
There is a problem. I know in my own particular district, where things were
really excellent, there was a great feeling, a positive feeling, I would say
that outside the overpass we probably had the most buoyant economy next to the
Avalon. I think most people would agree with me.
I cannot believe the measure of discontent that is in the district now.
People are fearing that all the infrastructure that was built up and created
economic development is going to be dismantled. I just spoke about the school
board, that there is a possibility that forty people might lose their jobs. What
is going to happen if the same thing happens to the health care boards? We are
also hearing that Human Resources and Employment are looking at - not looking
at, they came out and said - they are going to close twenty offices. Where are
those twenty offices? How are people going to be impacted because of that?
All we have heard is that there is going to be a lot of dismantling, but we
have not heard tell of any building up. That is a one-sided budget. How do you
expect people to feel, young people who are in the university and college
systems now, when they hear that news?
Number one, as a former administration we brought in lots of measures to help
them reduce their student loans and start off on a better footing. Now, if they
are going to be coming out of university and college with no hope for a public
sector job - we have only heard from a couple of groups in that public sector.
We still have to deal with the issue of nurses. Their contracts are coming up in
June, and teachers in August. No doubt they are watching to see how this
government will handle the current strike. Based on what we have seen so far,
there is very little hope out there that it is going to be any easier for those
two groups.
I think what we can say is that there has been a series of intimidation by
this government ever since January 5. On January 5, Mr. Speaker - and I have
said it a few times - the Premier set the atmosphere when he came out and said
there would be a wage freeze. He hadn't had any discussion prior to that point
or had sat down with union people. I think there would have been a different
feeling here in the Province today if the Premier had sat down during the fall
with union people and said: We have an issue here, we have a structural deficit,
and we need your help in trying to deal with this issue. Instead of that, before
any consultation, and he expected cooperation from unions, he came out blatantly
and arrogantly, mind you, for a first address by a new Premier, and said: There
will be - in fact, I was in CBC studios at the time and I was shocked when I
heard and saw what he said; a wage freeze for the public sector. I mean, without
any consultation with union leaders, none whatsoever, to just blatantly say:
That is the way it is.
Then there was another kind of intimidation. The indexing of the seniors'
pensions that they had gotten in their last round of contract talks, he
threatened to claw that back from the seniors who are out there today. He had to
haul in his horns on that one. There was so much of an outcry from seniors and
the general population all over this Province that he had to haul in his horns
on that and he had to take that one off the table. That would be an absolute
disgrace, for a new Premier who is supposed to be business oriented, coming to a
new government and talking about his expertise in economic development, and then
haul five dollars a month from seniors. Unreal! Anyway, thank God they came to
their senses. Maybe the caucus might have pressured him on this one. Maybe the
caucus might have pressured the Premier to pull back on that one, taking money
from seniors. I do not know who did it, but I am sure it was a combination of a
lot of people and the public at large, but he did it. I think it is time now for
the caucus to - like someone said this morning - tap him on the shoulder and
say: Look here, we need to do what's right here.
Anyway, here we are talking about intimidation again. Then, of course, he
went out and said: Well, we did not put a date on that wage freeze. Let me see
now, oh yes, that is going to be two years. He just randomly picked a number out
of thin air. It is going to be two years for a wage freeze. Then, on top of
that, he decided he would train up the RNC for riot protection. I do not know
who tipped off the media but the media were able to film the RNC in full flight,
decked out in their riot gear and ready for whatever they needed to do in case
of looking after crowd control. That was an intimidation tactic.
Then, of course, there have been several things put on the table and pulled
off the table. All intimidation. Then, only as late as last Friday, the Premier
decides to wait out on the picket line and negotiate directly with the union
members on the picket line. That is an unheard of thing for the employer to do
in the public sector; absolutely unheard of. That was intimidation.
There has been a lot of intimidation. Then there was the threat to union
workers themselves over the weekend. I saw it in the paper on Sunday. There has
been a series of heavy-handed intimidation, the worst kind of collective
bargaining that many people in this Province have ever witnessed. How do you get
a settlement when you go down that road and people do not trust any of the words
that you are saying or any of the actions that you do? I think you have to go
back to square one.
I think it is incumbent on the caucus and the Cabinet to let the Premier know
how the people in this Province really feel. They can start by saying, go back
to the table and sit down with the union. Develop a contract that everybody can
live with, instead of intimidating people. The caucus and the Cabinet need to go
back to the Premier, and they should be able to bring back the feelings of their
districts. They have thirty-four people over there on the government side. Now,
I cannot imagine how anybody from rural Newfoundland can go back to their
districts and hear nothing but accolades about this Budget. I do not believe it.
[Alarm sounding]
MS THISTLE: Is that another tactic to take me out of here?
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
I ask that the House now take a brief recess until we find out what is
happening.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Now that things have returned to normal, I recognize the Member for Grand
Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know what caused that interruption but I am glad it is over because
we have important business to do here. I am sure that members opposite will want
to carry on this very important debate about the Budget.
I was looking over some previous budgets by the Progressive Conservative
Government in this Province. It is almost like dj vu when I look at Budget
2004 and I compare it to the budget - it was years ago, I think it was 1986. I
do not know if there is anybody in this House who was around in 1986 when the
Progressive Conservative brought down their Budget.
MR. REID: Tom Rideout. Oh yes, and buddy up there too, by the way, the
Member for Port au Port.
MS THISTLE: There are a couple of people are there?
MR. REID: Yes, the Member for Port au Port.
MS THISTLE: Well, they would know more about this, I guess. They could
remember this a lot better than I could. My political history really only spans
about eight years. I started in 1996. But, it was hailed as the good news
budget. Can you imagine? At that time the Budget was $2.6 billion, in 1986. Of
course, it has doubled that now. It is over $4 billion. Actually, it is almost
$4.2 billion today.
The current account deficit at that particular time was $87 million. It is
funny how I mentioned that in 1983 it was $326 million. I looked at some of the
fees in that particular Budget and it is almost like somebody from the other
side went and dug out that Budget and said: Yes, that is not a bad idea. I think
we will sock it to the people of this Province because we survived that Budget
of 1986 for two years.
MR. REID: Was Len Simms the Finance Minister then I wonder?
MS THISTLE: I do not know. Like I told you, my political history does not
go back that far.
What I will say is that the Progressive Conservative Government, in 1986,
announced $20 million in new fiscal measures. Now, it was not called economic
development, it was called new fiscal measures. It is interesting that this
current government, the new Progressive Conservative Government, introduced
their fee increases and they total $26 million. A lot of similarities. In fact,
they said they are going to have a 5 per cent increase in the cost of motor
vehicle registration; a 5 per cent cost in motor vehicle registration. Now, I do
not have my calculator with me today but motor vehicle registration is going
from $140 to $180. I guess they looked at what the cost of money would be today
and they increased it upwards. Then they said 5 per cent in driver's licences;
5 per cent increase in Registry of Deeds; 5 per cent increase in tuitions at
vocational schools and colleges. Thank goodness, the protest that the students
had in February brought this new government to their senses because in 1986 the
Progressive Conservative Government increased tuition at the vocational schools
and colleges by 5 per cent.
I am proud to stand on my feet to say that we were the first government ever
to decrease tuition. Students themselves will tell you of the victories they
gained while we were the previous administration. They experienced tuition cuts,
as much as 25 per cent. This year this new government has said they will freeze
tuition, but they only said that after a repeated lobby from myself and this
Opposition side and, of course, the students who launched massive protests over
in Corner Brook and here on Prince Philip Drive. Of course, at that particular
time they increased a 750 millilitre bottle of liquor by thirty cents. That
raised profits by $1 million. So you can always count on the reliable area for
taking in more money. Then the cost of tin tobacco increased by fifty cents. I
think the Minister of Finance stood on his feet last Budget day and talked about
increasing alcohol and tobacco.
Can you imagine, the construction industry was slapped with a 12 per cent tax
rate on building materials. Can anybody tell me what putting a 20 per cent tax
on building materials does to the economy? My lord, it just stymes the economy
when you think about - two of the main indicators in our economy which tells us
how well we are doing, number one, would be housing starts; number two would be
car sales. The new government has already put out a warning to the people in
this Province: Forget housing starts next year, they are going to be down. You
have already said that housing starts are going to be down, you said the
population is going to decline and employment is only going to grow by not even
1 per cent. That is a wonderful message to put out to the Province for anyone
who is trying to generate new economic development.
I was looking in the paper, and I saw in The Telegram , we have a
columnist here, Brad George, who is with Provincial Affairs with the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business of Newfoundland and Labrador. He says that
last week was not good for small business owners in this Province. News of the
public service strike will certainly mean slower consumer spending.
I think we are already seeing that. We are already seeing there are less
people out there willing to take a chance and buy the big ticket items. People
do have to buy the essentials. They do have to buy their groceries. They do have
to pay their light and heat. They do have to pay their rent. Whether or not they
will pay their taxes on time is another question. What comes first? The roof
over your head and the food in your stomach. All the other things might have to
wait.
When it comes to retail spending and making purchases on disposable income,
you probably will not go out and buy a new appliance; you will make do. You
probably will not go out and buy a new television or new entertainment system or
go on a vacation. You probably will not go out and buy summer tires; maybe you
will wear your snow tires down until they are bald. These are the kinds of
things that, by bringing out a budget that is very grim, very bleak, does
nothing to instill confidence in consumers out there. Mr. George goes on to say:
Over 150 new fee and fine increases were announced in the Budget.
This government will stand on their feet and say there are no tax increases,
but can you tell me that by increasing fees and service charges and fines there
are no taxes? A lot of times the people who can least afford it are going to
have to pay these.
There is not one person in rural Newfoundland who does not value getting out
in the woods, whether they are fishing or hunting or out on their snow machine
or hiking or whatever. Every sport and every recreation that we have come to
enjoy as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are now going to be taxed to the hilt.
Even to take a shower in a provincial park is going to cost $5. If you want to
take your family out salmon fishing, it is going to go from $27 to $35. Now
government might think they are going to generate $25 million or $26 million by
doing that. Do you know something? I guess what they are not looking at is how
much money is generated from people putting gas in their gas tanks, people
buying extra food to bring it up into the woods, people buying equipment and
everything else, but if you are going to tax people so that they are going to be
discouraged from just taking a weekend in the woods, or overnight, or going on a
family vacation, they are not going to spend that money that they would normally
spend on a tank of gas and so on.
For the past three years we have been, as a former Administration, able to
provide a heat subsidy to people around this Province. We brought in that heat
subsidy when home heating fuel was thirty-seven cents a litre. Now, one of the
pledges that the government we see over there today made to our seniors is that
they would provide a subsidy up to $250 for our seniors for extra costs. I wrote
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board about this subsidy to
seniors and low-income earners and I got back a reply that he was studying it.
Then I asked again, and then I got back another reply that the price of fuel
oil, home heating oil, had gone down by four cents. Four cents. Now, we were
providing a subsidy of $100 a year to seniors and low-income earners for home
heat subsidy and this is how the Tory Blue Book, blueprint, commitment reads,
"Ensure seniors have adequate income to meet their basic needs by reducing
taxes..." - reducing taxes - "...and introducing a special needs
assistance program of up to $250 to assist with home heating costs for
low-income earners."
Now, while it is true that home heating fuel from February 15, 2003 to
February 15, 2004 came down by four cents a litre at that particular date, it
does not make any difference because we were providing a fuel subsidy when it
was thirty-seven cents a litre, and today, February 15, it is fifty-one cents a
litre.
The Tories go on to say "...by reducing taxes...". They have not
reduced taxes. They have increased fees. Now, you tell any senior out there who
is going to have to pay $40 more to license their vehicle, $5 to take a shower
in the park, $5 extra to get a salmon licence, and $12 more to get a moose
licence, and if they have to take an ambulance - my goodness, I guess people
will be thinking twice now before they use their phone and call an ambulance -
it is going to go up from $75 to $115 a trip.
I had a constituent call me over the weekend and they already got a bill,
since April 1, on an ambulance trip. There are two seniors in the house and the
only source of income is an old age pension cheque. One of the individuals in
this household is not very well, so will she have to think about, the next time
she takes an attack, will she call an ambulance? Because it means that she does
not have the money to pay it. It is gone from $75 to $115 a trip. If they need a
medical escort, that has gone from $25 to $50 a trip.
You say you have not increased taxes, and you are not about to provide a $250
subsidy to your seniors, as you indicated here in your Blue Book. Let me tell
you, and let me tell the seniors in this Province, you have increased your fees
and you have increased taxes, and you have not provided a heat subsidy to the
people who were out there today depending on it. Those same people who are going
to have to pay extra to get their car licenced, or their truck, they are going
to socked with high insurance. They already are. Some insurance has gone up as
much as 50 per cent. The discrimination now of young people and elderly people,
when it comes to getting insurance, what are they going to be faced with, when
they have to pay extra for insurance?
MR. REID: $2,300 for my son.
MS THISTLE: My colleague, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, just
said to me that he has one driver now, a son who is able to drive, and just
liability insurance, I guess, is going to cost $2, 300. How is it going to
affect elderly people?
MR. REID: They were going to fix that.
MS THISTLE: I thought the people across the House opposite were going to
fix the insurance. Apparently not! Apparently not!
Even if you want to get a trout licence, and I think there is a lot of
trouting going on, on the Avalon Peninsula, everywhere you look on the
Trans-Canada Highway, when the season opens, there are cars parked. People on
the Avalon Peninsula and all over our Province are big trouters, I guess, even
that one licence is going from $8 to $12. Family trout licence is going from $13
to $20.
A new fee, look, admission to Salmonier Nature Park is $3, and if you want to
take a guided walk in Cape St. Mary's, it is going from $5 to $7. All of the
camping has gone up. All of the camping that people would do in a provincial
park has gone up. Even if you want to get a bit of firewood at a provincial
park, that has gone from $4 to $5. The vehicle entry fee, if you are going to go
in there for the day, is $5. A vehicle entry fee for seasonal, there was not one
before, but now it is going to be $20. If you are interested in Crown land on
which to build a cottage, the document preparation is going from $100 to $200.
Assignment fees going up from $100 to $150; remote cottage license from $75 to
$100. Well now, listen! They want consent and agreement of the minister. The
consent and agreement of the minister is going from $100 to $200.
This is unreal! A home gardening license is going from ten dollars to
twenty-five dollars. Can you imagine getting a license to grow a few vegetables
and make yourself self-sufficient. It is probably on a community lot. That is
the only thing I can figure out. I know that a lot of people like to try to
garden and make themselves self-sufficient, to grow vegetables over the summer
that they can use in the winter, and here now you are going to put a tax on
someone trying to make themselves independent, going from ten dollars to
twenty-five dollars.
Imagine! Vital statistics, a standard fee of twenty-five dollars for each
certificate. If you want a birth certificate, a marriage certificate, a death
certificate, no matter what you need, any certificate, it is going to cost you
twenty-five dollars.
A driver's license is going from $80 dollars to $100; registration fees for
passenger vehicles, $140 to $180. Even when you get your picture taken now - and
you have to get that taken, there is no way out of it - that is increased from
twenty to twenty-five dollars. If you are running a taxi business and you want
to register your taxi, that is going from $120 to $150. Imagine a young person
driving a motor cycle for the first time and trying to get a bike on the road.
That has gone from fifty dollars to seventy-five dollars. A transfer of vehicle
is going from fifteen dollars to twenty-five. My goodness! In transit permits
for vehicles from eleven to fifteen dollars.
We can see clearly that you are talking about no taxes, but yet, in fact,
there are lots of taxes here. There are 150 different categories of taxes here.
No matter what you say, there are all kinds of taxes here.
What has this government done to generate new revenue except sock it to the
people who are out there now using these services every day of the week? I can't
find anything in the book that is going to generate new economic development. If
there is, I would like for someone to stand and tell me. When you think about
the spinoffs when someone brings in fees like that, it is totally negative.
We were able to stand here last year and talk about all the good things that
were happening in our Province. There was absolutely nothing in this Budget that
people could stand up and say that this is a good news Budget.
I want to talk a bit about health, because health touches every person in
this Province. It does not matter what district you are from. All I am hearing
when I go through my district is, what is happening? What is happening to the
things that we have enjoyed for so long? It looks like this new government are
going to close out health care boards, going to close out clinics, and we have
already seen that because they have already blatantly come out and said that
they are not going to defer the extension to the James Paton Hospital
redevelopment in Gander. They are going to cancel it. Yet, I heard the Member
for Gander on an Open Line show last week. He was praising government's
decision, and he said that people in his district had no objection to the
extension to the James Paton Hospital in Gander being cancelled.
MR. REID: What about the dialysis there? Is that being cancelled too?
MS THISTLE: I have not received an update on dialysis in Gander.
MR. REID: You would think the Minister of Health would nod her head yes
or no.
MS THISTLE: Yes, and maybe she will give us some indication because I
know a lot of people want to know that.
MR. REID: No answer, not allowed to talk about it.
MS THISTLE: No, there have been no answers from the side opposite there
as to what is going to happen.
When I talked about - today, before the alarm went off here - I asked for
members on the government side to stand and let me hear their support for the
cancer clinic. I asked them to let me hear their support for the board education
offices and their support for the health boards and their support for retaining
the social services and labour branches. I never saw anybody stand. I never saw
anybody nod. I never saw anybody say that was important to the economy of
Central Newfoundland. It made no difference to people opposite. They have no
feeling, no compassion. It is clear-cut. They are heartless, they are cold, they
have no compassion; no compassion for the people of the Province whatsoever.
They are just coming in with a slash-and-burn Budget. They are going to sock it
to the people all over this Province, and all they are doing is preaching doom
and gloom; doom and gloom every day of the week.
We are always accused over here of reckless spending. I would say, right
here, Maintaining Priority on Health, total funding allocated to the Department
of Health and Community Services in 2002 was $1.5 billion. I am sure that people
in this House have heard me say on many occasions that when I was appointed as
the President of Treasury Board, the budget for the whole entire Department of
Health was $900 million. Today it is $1.4 billion, almost $1.5 billion.
Did that money come from the federal government, that extra $500 million or
$600 million that is put into the Department of Health on an annual basis? I
would ask members opposite: Do you think that money came from the federal
government? No, absolutely not! In fact, all of us know that the federal
government reduced our budget for health and education. Even in 2004 we are not
up to the standards that we experienced in 1994.
What do you do when someone is coming to you and saying that they are
travelling three times a week to go to St. John's for dialysis? What do you do
when someone needs an increase - you talk about increases in the drug program.
This government says that they are putting $8 million into new drug therapies
and the drug program this year. The truth of the matter is, that $8 million is
really an overrun of last year, that more drugs were used, it cost more. The
people of this Province can really not expect any new improvements to their drug
program this year. It is all glossed over in flowery words in the Budget, but
the truth of the matter is that $8 million is gone. It is just reported there
once again.
It said in the highlights of 2002, "Government is committing $2.7
million annually to provide a 4% wage increase to home support workers,
beginning with a 2% increase on June 1, 2002 and a further 2% increase on
December 1, 2002. $1.1 million is provided to implement a Wellness Strategy
which will include expansion of the breast and cervical screening
programs..." All of these are good initiatives. "Government is
committing an additional $1.3 million..." so that people in personal care
homes can have more money each month. That would bring that up to $13 million
annually.
Health Facilities: Capital spending of $51 million. $31 million is to be
spent on planning and construction of capital projects underway in Gander, Fogo,
Stephenville and Grand Bank; $5 million will assist with renovations and repairs
to existing facilities; $15 million will be spent on diagnostic, clinical and
related equipment; $800,000 is provided for a psychiatric assessment/short stay
in St. John's; $2 million for a Strategic Social Plan.
Other provinces around the country are in awe about the Strategic Social Plan
that we launched while we were government. There is great information coming out
of that plan which can be used for policymaking in the future. In fact, we have
used some of this informaiton and already developed policies that will benefit
the people of our Province.
For the second consecutive year, the income threshold for the Newfoundland
and Labrador Child Benefit will increase; $2 million was set aside to assist low
income earners to offset the cost of fuel oil tank replacements. I can tell you,
too, there was a great initiative for seniors. The increased subsidy to seniors
was increased from $350 to $700, which was a wonderful benefit that seniors look
forward to every year.
We had $108 million in Municipal Capital Works Program in 2002. All around
the Province there was money provided for municipal debt relief program. That
has meant so much to a lot of communities around the Province in enabling
communities to get a fresh start and being able to take on projects once again.
A lot of communities around the Province have had to deal with large debt loads
for municipal infrastructure, water and sewer. This has been difficult when you
have a shrinking tax base and you cannot (inaudible) payments to the municipal
financing board, but a decision was made by the previous government that we
would allocate municipal debt relief, and that was done several years in a row.
In fact, one of the communities which benefitted from that policymaking decision
was the community of Badger. There was a writeoff of their municipal debt of, I
think, $1.2 million or $1.6 million, which has given them a fresh new start.
I want to talk a little bit, too, how the federal government recently, in
their budget, provided GST rebates to capital work projects in larger towns. Of
course, this new provincial government, in their Budget, have decided to
clawback the GST rebate. I have one town in my district that is going to lose
money from that decision by the provincial government. The Town of Grand
Falls-Windsor are going to lose $118,000 in their Municipal Operating Grant
because the Province will clawback that GST rebate. How do you get back $118,000
that you would have been able to spend on projects? Well, you have one or two
choices. You either do not do your projects or you sock it to the taxpayer
again. That is what it is coming down to. They are downloading the provincial
commitments to the municipalities and leaving it up to towns to do the work of
dealing with those reductions in the Municipal Operating Grant.
Two-point-eight million dollars provided for implementation of Jobs and
Growth Strategy. I did not see anything here in your Budget about Jobs and
Growth Strategy. All I saw was job loss strategy; 4,000 jobs in fact. A job loss
strategy. What does the loss of 4,000 jobs do to the economy? It means that
young people today can forget about getting a job with government. That is what
that means. For those who were planning to move up to a position that was held
by a public service employee and hoping to get their job when they retire,
forget it. You are stuck. If you thought you had a chance of being promoted,
that is not there. It does not exist.
Over the next five years this new government intends to eliminate 4,000 jobs.
If you had 4,000 people lined up outside the Confederation Building the media
would say you had a huge crowd. In fact, 1,000 people lined up outside for a
protest is a huge crowd. Now, you take 4,000 people outside - I do not think you
can put 4,000 people outside the front of the Confederation Building. I do not
believe you can. Well, for every 4,000 people you have out there you had better
put a face to those numbers.
Look at the main employers in our Province, everybody knows their district
better than anybody else. I look at how many people are employed at the biggest
employer in my district, which is the hospital and the board; then the paper
mill. Then you have the public sector after that, the service industries, and
the schools and the colleges. You take 4,000 people and you multiply that by a
spouse, and you also have a couple of children probably, what does that do to
St. John's? I do not know if it would have the same effect in St. John's as
it would have in Mount Pearl for instance. Mount Pearl is made up of a great
number of public sector workers. I am sure the Member for Mount Pearl would
agree with me because I would say that the greatest number of people employed in
the public sector probably comes from Mount Pearl. Just take, for instance,
there are 1,500 of those coming out of Mount Pearl.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: Just take for instance that there are 1,500 workers that
might come out of Mount Pearl who are currently employed in the public sector
here in this Province. Now, 1,500 employees, everyone of those probably has a
spouse or a partner and they probably have children. What does that do to the
school system in Mount Pearl? What does that do to the retail in Mount Pearl?
What does that do to the recreation facilities in Mount Pearl? What does that do
to health care facilities? Look at the medical clinics in Mount Pearl. Look at
the retail. Look at the young people. We are already hearing that the Mount
Pearl Show Choir are looking at going to Japan. I just hope they do because they
certainly deserve it. I have seen them in action and they are absolutely
terrific. I hope those children get to go to Japan because they are just so
good.
I am just saying, when you hear about numbers, of 4,000 jobs, sometimes you
just forget for the moment what it means. It actually means 4,000 families. Four
thousand people and their families are not going to use the services anymore in
our Province. What will happen? Will they decide to actually leave Newfoundland
and Labrador? Will they head for the mainland? Will they be the ones who are
going to buy the salmon licence every year? No, I do not think so. They are not
going to be the ones who are going to buy a trout licence and they are not going
to get their vehicles registered here. They are not going to pay for insurance.
Last year, or the year before in Budget 2002, there was $2.6 million
allocated for road projects; including upgrading of roads in Rigolet, Northwest
River, Port Hope Simpson, Cartwright, Charlottetown and Mary's Harbour. Now,
what did I see in the Budget this year for Labrador? I did not see very much. I
did not see very much in there for Labrador and the people in Labrador too are
making their views known. In fact, the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair
has a real problem on her hands now, the fact that you are not going to even
plow the roads in her district.
Then I saw $2 million that was allocated for a new courthouse in Goose Bay,
while the young people in Goose Bay do not have their auditorium they were
promised by this new government. That was in the election promises, but that is
gone by the wayside.
I do not see anything there for how we are going to increase our tourists
this year. There was $1 million set aside. One million set aside to increase the
tourists coming to this Province. When you look at what you published in your Economy
Book , that you expected tourism to remain on the same level that it was last
year, my goodness!
I am sure there must be optimistic people over on the other side somewhere. I
do not hear them, but there should be optimistic people over there on the other
side. I think most of the people in this Province were expecting great things
from the new government. They have not seen it yet.
Just look at consumer spending. In 2003, consumers spent an estimated $9.5
billion compared with just over $7 billion in 1996. Can you imagine? That speaks
volumes of the confidence that consumers in this Province feel, or how they
felt. I cannot say that they feel that way today because there has not been
anything in the Budget that would give them that confidence level, but this is
how they felt. This is definitely how they felt.
Look at the housing starts. Housing starts grew by 11 per cent in one year. I
am seeing carpenters in St. John's building all winter in the snow, in all of
the bad weather. Can you imagine that? Even in Grand Falls-Windsor there were
over 100 houses built last year. Housing starts were at their highest since
1991. This new government, they had the nerve to come out and say that housing
starts are expected to decline in 2004. What a pessimistic message to put out
with the general public. What a pessimistic message! That is ridiculous for a
government that was going to do wonders here in this Province.
Do you know something? I looked at construction. Construction investment
totalled almost $2.5 billion in 2003. That was up10 per cent - 10 per cent -
from 2002. Residential and non-residential construction spending increased last
year. Non-residential construction spending rose by 7.6 per cent and of the
estimated $1.6 billion in non-residential construction, about two-thirds was
attributable to the mining and oil industries.
What you have here is a base. The Minister of Finance said himself, when he
brought down his Budget - I think he got his own self confused. He said, the
good news is that our economic fundamentals are strong. We have a good base upon
which we can build as we endeavour to secure a better future for ourselves and
our children.
Let me tell you, Mr. Finance Minister, prior to your Budget people were
enjoying a level of confidence we had not seen for years in this country, in
this Province.
I want to talk about what you are going to do. There has been no indication
from the Minister of Human Resources and Employment where the twenty offices are
going to close around this Province, within her jurisdiction. Now, I have heard
it said in the media that people who use those departments and those offices
will now be able to use their telephone or their own computer to get everything
done that they need done. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of people who
use - I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I did not realize that the Speaker's Chair
had changed. I can tell you that a great number of the people I deal with, day
in and day out, require the individual person-to-person contact in dealing with
situations that are paramount to their concerns. A lot of them will not be able
to get the necessary work done over the telephone, and many of them do not have
access to a computer or would not be trained in computer usage. So, Madam
Speaker, closing out twenty offices - that is another thing, closing out twenty
offices. What does that do, when there are probably only one or two government
services in a particular small rural community, and people depend on those
services for whatever they need? Closing out a government service in a
community, lots of times it is more than just for social assistance or drug card
or questions on MCP. Lots of time when a person from a rural community would go
into a government office, they ask questions that you probably would not even
consider here in St. John's. That first front-line access provides a wealth of
information that you would not normally find if you were here in a bigger city.
It is different when you compare rural Newfoundland to, say, St. John's. I
heard it said that there is a certain member in this House who, if he got a
call, if his phone rang, he thought it would be a fire alarm announcement,
because most people in St. John's districts are not used to getting the
constituency calls that members who represent rural districts would. Anybody who
lives here in St. John's has total access to every government service that is
required. They just pick up their telephone or they walk right into
Confederation Building and it is done. If you are a member in a rural area you
are the first person people will call when they want to get a birth certificate,
a passport, a death certificate, if they want to get a drug card, if they want
to look at home support, even if they want false teeth, they want glasses, they
need a hearing aid, they want to look at transportation to bring them to and
from a doctor's clinic or they have specialty services that they need in St.
John's. All of these are questions that they would call their MHA about if
they are from a rural district,
whereas in St. John's you may not even get
those kinds of calls, and more than likely you don't.
When I think back to the makeup of the provincial Cabinet, I look at the fact
that you only have four members in Cabinet from rural Newfoundland. Now, does
that tell me that members' interests are properly reflected when you have an
urban Cabinet, you don't have an urban-rural Cabinet? A lot of those people
who represent rural Newfoundland are living here in St. John's and I don't
know if they have lost touch. Probably they have done their best to represent
rural Newfoundland but I didn't see that when the Budget came out.
I saw two members who are in the provincial Cabinet representing rural
Newfoundland, the Member for Lewisporte and the Member for Baie Verte, who
really didn't use their influence at the Cabinet Table for making sure that
the cancer clinic that was so well needed, much needed and urgently needed for
the people in Central Newfoundland, they didn't offer their support, or if
they offered it I don't think they had much clout. I don't think they had
much clout.
Here we are talking now about combining school boards and hospital boards. I
know in the particular district that I represent, there are two Cabinet members
who are going to be affected as much as I am. Now, what are they doing for the
people in Central Newfoundland, which leads me to believe it is a one-man show?
I haven't heard or seen, in this Budget, anything that would indicate anything
different. There is nothing there that would indicate that the Member for
Lewisporte or the Member for Baie Verte stood up and spoke for the people in my
district and, in fact, all of Central Newfoundland. They are prepared to slough
off the fact that 4,000 people are leaving the public sector. They are not
concerned about closing twenty offices that low-income support people and people
unemployed, the people who need it the most - they are not concerned about the
twenty offices going to close. They are not concerned that it is going to cost
an enormous amount of money to renovate an office out in Gander, to move
everything from Grand Falls-Windsor to Gander, and the school board owns the
building in Grand Falls-Windsor. It is a school that used to be in existence. It
has the capacity and it is renovated to computer standards. It is wired and in
use now for development and training of