Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 24 March 2003 (44th General Assembly, 5th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 3)
2003-03-24
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 24, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 3
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great
Newfoundland entrepreneur who passed away on January 14, at the young age of
fifty-five.
Gerry Pritchett left Newfoundland in his teens and returned in the late
1980s. The Pritchett group of companies, which he started, includes businesses
in aviation, construction, tourism, heavy equipment, and he is well known as a
founding father of our new dimension stone industry. The contract he won to
supply dimension stone to The Rooms will be a major showcase for Gerry's black
granite and will always remind us of him.
Gerry had a unique style - he was an outspoken, risk-taking, determined,
controversial, results oriented person, who wanted the very best for his town
and his Province. Many of us also knew the other side of Gerry - the caring,
generous side, the man who had a great sense of humor, loved music and lived for
his fishing trips to Labrador. Gerry also served on the boards of the Gander and
Area Chamber of Commerce, and Junior Achievement, and he was a great supporter
of the Health Care Foundation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this House join with me in expressing
condolences to Gerry's wife, Connie, and all his family. He will be sadly
missed, not only by his family but by his friends and business associates all
over the world.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Saturday, March 15, I, along with the Leader of the Opposition and the
Member for Baie Verte, had the pleasure of joining 1,500 other people at
Grenfell Ride 2003.
At 7:00 a.m., many of us met at the Grenfell Historical Properties in St.
Anthony for breakfast and then departed for a fifty kilometre ride to the Main
Brook intersection. There, snowmobilers from all over the Northern Peninsula and
indeed from across the Province came together in an attempt at breaking the
world record for the longest continuous line of moving snowmobiles.
Mr. Speaker, 739 snowmobiles participated in the record-breaking attempt. At
the end of the ride in Main Brook, 320 snowmobiles crossed the line without a
break, setting a new Guinness World Record.
Mr. Speaker, the Grenfell Ride has grown every year to become the Province's
premier snowmobile event, Atlantic Canada's largest snowmobile meet and, as of
March 15, the biggest snowmobile ride in the world.
Saturday past was a great day for winter tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador
and, Mr. Speaker, it was brought about by the tremendous volunteer efforts of
people all around the tip of the Northern Peninsula.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Grenfell Historical
Society, the Grenfell Ride Organizing Committee, the people of Main Brook, and
all those people from around the Northern Peninsula who came together to make
the Grenfell Ride a truly regional event.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those involved with the Grenfell Ride, I would like
to extend an invitation: When the snowbanks seem too high, when the temperatures
dip too low, when you feel that you have to get away, come to a place where the
warmth of the people surrounds you. Come to a place where the winds will blow
your worries away. Come and stand on the whitest beaches in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome everybody next year to Grenfell Ride,
the biggest snowmobile ride in the world.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, on February 16 of this year, for the first time,
a musical band from Labrador won at the East Coast Music Association Awards.
The Flummies album, Way Back Then, received the award for Aboriginal
Recording of the Year. That award has been many years in the making for the band
who celebrate a quarter of a century together in 2003. As a prelude to their
ECMA win, the Flummies received a Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and
Labrador award for 2002 Aboriginal Artist/Group of the Year.
The Flummies have chartered a course for future Labrador musicians. This
accomplishment is even more astonishing because the band has remained only a
weekend endeavour for the members.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in
congratulating the Flummies on receiving the award for Aboriginal Recording of
the Year.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Saturday evening, March 22, 2003, Sport Newfoundland and Labrador held
their annual awards banquet to honour the best in the Province for 2002.
It is with a great sense of pride that I stand here in the House today and
year, and Jenine Browne, who was named the top senior female athlete of the
year.
Both of these fine individuals are not only from the District of Placentia
and St. Mary's, and not only are both from the Cape Shore area of my district,
but both are former students of Fatima Academy in St. Bride's, my own former
school. To say they have made us all proud would be an understatement. The have
helped develop the game of basketball into an obsession with many people
throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Watching both of these
star athletes perform on the courts of North America has won both our praise and
our hearts.
Carl has excelled as a member of the University of Hawaii Rainbow Warriors.
He has won several awards including top scorer, most valuable player and was one
of only fifty nominees out of the thousands of U.S. college basketball players
chosen for the prestigious John R. Wooden Award. He was recently the subject of
a three page
article in Sports Illustrated and also highlighted in a
major spread in ESPN Magazine , March edition.
Jenine Browne has taken ladies basketball to a new level. She has led the MUN
Sea Hawks to the Atlantic University Sport Crown two years in a row. She has won
many awards and honours including AUS regular-season and playoff most valuable
player, AUS and CIS top scorer with 21.1 points per game. She was named to the
CIS first all-star team and was also a member of the Canadian Junior Women's
under twenty team which competed in the World Juniors in Brazil last summer.
Much has been said and written about those two fine young people but I want
to make a special recognition today to a person who played a very important and
vital role in the early development of Carl and Jenine. That is Mr. Gordon Pike,
a native of St. Lawrence who came to Fatima Academy as a physical education
teacher many years ago. He may not want me to mention how many. Gord Pike, who
has a great love for basketball, saw the potential of Carl and Jenine and helped
to hone their skills and laid a solid foundation for both of them that has
served them well both on and off the courts.
Saturday night's award I am sure was very satisfying to Gord, and on behalf
of everyone I congratulate him also and publicly thank him for his guidance and
support to all our children over the years. By the way, Mr. Pike is now the
Principal of Fatima Academy.
being Newfoundland and Labrador's best athletes of 2002.
Along with being great athletes, both Carl and Jenine have become excellent
role models -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. MANNING: Along with being great athletes, both Carl and Jenine have
become excellent role models for our young people and wonderful ambassadors for
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Congratulations, keep us the good work and remember, the sky is definitely
the limit.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In January of this year two residents in my district celebrated very
significant birthdays.
On the twentieth, Mrs. Elizabeth Bradbury of Coley's Point turned 105,
which in today's world is a great accomplishment. Until she was 103, Mrs.
Bradbury loved to be driven around her community. She enjoyed watching the
dedication and continuous growth of her town, especially during Christmas. The
bright lights of Christmas and the festive spirit from residents, always managed
to make Mrs. Bradbury smile with pride.
On January 28, Mr. Chesley Earle from Shearstown celebrated his ninety-third
birthday. Mr. Earle has not let his age interfere with his life. He remains very
active and neighbours can always find him outside doing chores around his home.
Mr. Speaker, both Mrs. Bradbury and Mr. Earle are strong, determined
individuals, who through the years have made a strong impact in their
communities. On behalf of my fellow Members in the House of Assembly I would
like to thank them for their years of influence and support in their
communities, and wish them both a very happy belated birthday.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take this opportunity today to extend birthday greetings as
well to a constituent of mine, Mrs. Alice Squires, who celebrated her
one-hundredth birthday on Valentine's Day, February 14.
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an education to sit down and listen to Mrs.
Squires recall the events of her life over the past century. I went to visit her
on Valentine's Day and I found her sitting at the table - she resides with her
son, Cyril, and his wife, Joan - eating a good old Newfoundland feed of fish and
potatoes. I sat down and enjoyed the meal with her.
Her only wish, Mr. Speaker, was that she could look out through her window
and see her former house restored to the way she remembered it in days gone by.
I understand in talking with the family after that the Bonavista Historical
Association has recently purchased her house and it is on their list of historic
homes to be restored. So, I am sure I echo the wishes of everybody here when I
offer our congratulations and best wishes to Mrs. Alice Squires of Bonavista.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform my colleagues of a very important event taking place
this week in Gander: the 3 rd Annual Clean and Safe Drinking Water
Workshop. More than 300 delegates have registered for this workshop and the
majority of those attending are representatives of municipalities from across
the Province. This event provides an opportunity for my department to share
information, to educate and be educated, and to respond to questions from the
people who operate water systems throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
I thank my colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, for
his department's assistance in making it possible for many of these municipal
representatives to attend.
Mr. Speaker, the quality of drinking water in this Province is a high
priority for this government. Government has made a significant commitment to
ensure the provision of safe drinking water. We have financial and human
resources within four different government departments - Environment, Municipal
and Provincial Affairs, Health and Community Services, and Government Services
and Lands - all dedicated to the issue of water quality. We have a progressive
action plan which was outlined when we released the Source to Tap document
nearly two years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise this House that we are making progress in
implementing our action plan effectively. We have increased chemical and
bacteriological sampling, increased investment in capital projects, enhanced
training initiatives, we have experienced a decrease in the number of boil water
advisories and we have provided an annual public report on the safety of public
water supplies.
In keeping with our commitment to openness and transparency, one of the key
areas where we have made significant improvements is in the level of our
communication to the public. We have substantially enhanced our public
communication through our Web site and with direct communication with
communities should there be any indication of an emerging issue.
Mr. Speaker, our annual water conference is a means by which we continue our
efforts to enhance our communication with municipalities and to work
cooperatively and collaboratively with the people who have the day-to-day
responsibility of operating drinking water systems throughout this Province. We
are committed to providing operator training opportunities since we are quite
aware of the important role that water system operators play in the provision of
safe drinking water.
Over the course of this workshop, we will provide these operators with access
to some of the best technical experts in the area of water quality. They will
gain much information which will assist them in carrying out their
responsibility to ensure the people who live in their communities have access to
safe drinking water.
Mr. Speaker, I commend all those who will make the effort to attend this
workshop. It is clear they share government's commitment to safe drinking
water. The people of this Province expect and certainly deserve no less.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, these workshops are always good. They are
always progressive. However, I will say that after ten years of poor water
management and water quality, after six years of withholding the state of the
Province's water supply, with over 200 boil orders in the Province, more than
any of the other province's in Canada, and, in fact, more than all of the
other provinces in Canada combined, these are all factors, Mr. Speaker, that
contributed to government starting to take these actions. We still have 200-odd
boil orders in this Province. The Province still withholds information to the
general public on Haloacidic Acids and the health concerns that they create for
the people of this Province. This Province was shamed into these actions and,
while they are a good start, Mr. Speaker, they don't go far enough. I am
looking forward to the day when we can sit on that side of the House and put in
place the measures that have to be put in place to put public confidence in the
water supplies in this province -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: - to ensure public confidence and public trust, Mr.
Speaker, in the water supplies and water quality in this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When the document that the minister refers to, the Source to Tap document,
was issued in 2001, in May of that year, there were boil orders in place in 223
communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Fully 18 per cent of the
people of the Province in serviced areas had boil orders in effect.
I would have expected the new minister, on whose job I congratulate him, in
making his first report to the House would, in fact, be giving us a progress
report on the elimination of boil orders. We are happy to see that some
education is taking place, because it is obviously very important, but what we
really need, Mr. Speaker, is progress on this most important and vital area of
safe drinking water for every community in Newfoundland and Labrador. We should
not rest, Mr. Speaker, until that happens. The minister should be giving us a
report on that, not telling us about a seminar which his department should be
doing, in any event.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the recipients of the second annual
Newfoundland and Labrador Youth of the Year awards.
These rewards, which provide a $500 scholarship to each of the winners, were
established to recognize the outstanding achievements of youth ages fifteen to
thirty, who contribute to the social and economic development of our Province.
The awards were developed by Futures in Newfoundland and Labrador's Youth (FINALY)
in partnership with the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
education and Memorial University of Newfoundland. Youth and youth related
issues are of high priority to this government and we could make no greater
investment than in our young people.
I was honored this morning to help present awards to five of our Province's
most outstanding young people: Olivia Heaney of Mount Pearl in the Expression
category; Niraj Shukla of St. John's for Innovation; Jay McGrath of Branch for
Heritage; Lisa Saunders of Bay Bulls in the Linkages category; and Amy Parsons
of Twillingate for Vision. These individuals have joined us in the gallery
today, and I would like for them to stand to be recognized by the Members of the
House of Assembly, and I would like for members to join with me in
congratulating them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minster for an advance copy of her statement. We, on this side of
the House, certainly join with her in congratulating these fine young
individuals who have just stood and were recognized for their accomplishments in
the various areas. It is great that we can recognize the youth and their
potential, and it is up to us to make sure that we continue to present
opportunities for the youth of this Province to excel.
To Olivia, Niraj, Jay, Lisa and Amy, I, as well as my colleagues, pass along
congratulations for a great job. Keep up the good work. Certainly, rising in the
House today has brought a youthful, bright -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: - bit of fresh air into this wonderful House.
Thank you again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to take a moment to join in congratulating these five young
people on their accomplishments and their contribution to the social and
economic development of the Province.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that while they are being recognized, and deservedly
so, they will probably be the first to recognize that there are many, many young
people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador who do play a significant role in
our communities with their own ideas, with their own enthusiasm, with their own
ability, and contribute to our Province, and I want to congratulate them and all
the other young people who go out of their way to try and make this a better
place for all of us to live in.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, I heard the Premier say that the Throne Speech marked
the beginning of this government's election campaign. Well, after just two
days in the House, it is pretty obvious that members opposite plan to embark on
a fearmongering campaign, the likes of which this Province has never seen
before.
Mr. Speaker, last week I listened in disbelief as the Premier and others
suggested that our party would make massive cuts to the public sector, and
stated that nothing is safe, nobody is safe, if our party forms a government.
Let me set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, that those statements are
absolutely incorrect.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, let's find out who really carries the
hatchet around this House.
Would the Premier please confirm that it was this Liberal government, in
which most of the current members opposite had a seat at the Cabinet or at the
caucus table, that in just one budget announced some 2,500 job cuts and a wage
rollback?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the line of questioning. Obviously, we have struck a nerve with
the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I quote from Hansard, which is the official document that
records the words spoken in this House, where the Leader of the Opposition, in
responding to the Throne Speech - well, in making his own mini Throne Speech, I
should say, because he chose not to respond to the Throne Speech - said, and
these are his words that the people of the Province, including Mr. Hanlon, head
of the public sector union, that were said earlier in the public in Deer Lake by
the Member for St. John's East: I, for one, in my caucus, will not be bound by
commitments made by a government.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER GRIMES: That is what he said.
AN HON. MEMBER: He is wrong.
PREMIER GRIMES: That is what he said, Mr. Speaker. Now, today, he is
trying to suggest that he is saying something different. Well, through the
weekend, I guess, the alter ego, the real Leader of the Opposition, the Member
for Kilbride, who speaks as the leader outside the House because the real leader
says nothing outside the House and sends out the alter ego, the real leader from
Kilbride - on the weekend, I am sure the Leader of the NDP, the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and the Member for Labrador West were absolutely
astounded to hear that the Tories, all of a sudden, were going to be left of
centre. They must have just moved their seats down and joined the NDP, because
they are - we are striking a chord, we are striking a nerve, Mr. Speaker.
The question with respect to the Budget that did lay off 2,500 people, I do
believe, if I am not mistaken, probably the only person on this side of the
House who was in the Cabinet at that point in time was me. We have a new team
over here, Mr. Speaker, new leadership.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: I can tell you again, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Speaker.
I can tell you again, just like I told and was proud to tell the students at
Memorial University on Friday, that when I was the Minister of Education in
another Liberal Administration with a different leader, I was Minister of
Education when we were increasing tuitions. Now that I am the leader and we are
leading this group, we have reduced tutitions by 25 per cent and became the
lowest in Canada, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: This leader and this Party will stand on its own record
quite proudly, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in quoting me from Hansard the Premier forgot
to read the rest of the sentence. It says, "I, for one, and my caucus, won't
be bound by the political commitments made by a government in the last days of
their electoral term without first evaluating them through a comprehensive due
diligence process." Due diligence is something you do not understand,
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in my thirty-odd years in the private sector I
have created thousands of jobs and I stand on my private sector record.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: I have never had a major layoff, not once.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question, quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Unlike members opposite, Mr. Speaker, I have always,
always, honoured negotiated collective agreements.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier also confirm that by very
conservative estimates this Liberal government has, in fact, eliminated well
over 4,000 jobs since they took office in 1989?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I might point out, while the Leader of the Opposition suggests his proud
record in the private sector we do know of incidents where he sold out companies
and had someone else layoff Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: He might not have done it directly, Mr. Speaker, but he
took the cash and let someone else lay off Newfoundlanders and Labradorians here
in St. John's, in Corner Brook and elsewhere in the Province. The public
record clearly shows that.
Mr. Speaker, the public service in Newfoundland and Labrador is of a size
that is required to deliver the programs and services that the people want,
need, desire and expect for health care, education, and other public services.
In some areas, certainly, there have been fewer workers such as the area of
teaching because in that same ten-year period, he might be interested in
knowing, that the school age population of Newfoundland and Labrador has
decreased by over 40,000. Over 40,000 fewer students are in our schools today
compared to ten years ago. So, is he now suggesting that we should have exactly
the same number of teachers as we had ten years ago? There are some reasons why
some sectors of the public service, paid for by the government, are a little bit
smaller today than they were ten years ago. He also understands that because of
a set of circumstances largely beyond the control of the government here, a
moratorium in the fishery which he does understand is an impact like closing
down the auto industry in Ontario, that we do have 50,000 people in total fewer
in the Province today that we are servicing -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - for health care and other services, and there are some
reductions in the public service but not because of massive layoffs by any
government that I have led, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I also heard the Premier say last week that no
collective agreement would be safe under a Progressive Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, I will once again state categorically that any government I lead
will honour all of the collective agreements that have currently been
negotiated, just as I did in the private sector.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please confirm for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador, and members of NAPE and CUPE in particular, that
it was a Liberal government, of which he was an elected member and a Cabinet
minister, that broke government contracts, rolled back salaries and ordered wage
freezes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition making my point as well, or better
than I could make it myself. His words were these - and we have said there is
one thing about the Leader of the Opposition that the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador have come to understand and understand more every single time he
speaks, he is consistently inconsistent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, here is the evidence again. Here was a man -
we saw the body language when he stood up being so proud to say, "I, for
one, and my caucus, won't be bound by the political commitments made by a
government...". That is what he said, and he almost beat his chest he was
so proud to say it.
Now today, because he has been challenged by NAPE and CUPE, he says: oh, by
the way, I will honour the commitments made to NAPE and CUPE. No due diligence
needed there now. Everything has to go through due diligence. Forget the due
diligence; no due diligence now.
I would expect, as you see an election unfold, you will see him turn himself
inside out, twist like you wouldn't believe, to try to be all things to all
people. The only thing he is, is absolutely, totally, consistently inconsistent,
and it is evident here again today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the Premier was not invited to
the session that I attended at NAPE eighteen months ago when I was clearly on
the record, with Mr. Hanlon sitting next to me, that we would honour collective
agreements - the same statement eighteen months ago. That sounds pretty
consistent to me, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier in fact confirm that, as
Minister of Employment in a Liberal government, he supported the cuts in the
1992 fall mini-budget, and as Minister of Education he cut nearly 1,000 teachers
in budgets 1996,1997 and 1998, including sixty teachers at the School for the
Deaf?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My recollection is very clear of his address to the NAPE annual meeting a
year or so ago, in which he did not say what he just stated at all. What he did
say at that point in time was this: If we have to make some changes to your
contracts, we will not make them without consulting with you first.
That does not say we will honour the commitment, Mr. Speaker. That was the
speech he made, and the members opposite know it. The members opposite know it.
Again today, because he was so proud to say: I will not be bound by commitments
made by a government - now, because he is challenged, he is saying: I will be
bound by the commitments to NAPE and CUPE. I will be bound by the commitments to
doctors.
So, which ones is he not going to be bound by, Mr. Speaker? He will have to
explain himself because he is taking both positions.
The reason that we can do things differently today than we did ten years ago
is because today we have a future. Today we have Hibernia. Today we have White
Rose. Today we have Terra Nova. Today we have Voisey's Bay.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: None of these things were on the horizon a decade ago,
and a government would have been irresponsible to be going ahead and spending
money when they saw no future, no development, no growth in the economy.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: All of these things are in Newfoundland and Labrador
today because of the things that this government has done and that group has
resisted. That is why we are moving forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe we should talk about today and the last two years
that the Premier has been in office.
Would the Premier confirm that during the last two years he has ordered
health boards to cut their operating deficits, which resulted in loses of jobs;
that he had budgeted a 5 per cent reduction in government salaries, that
resulted in a loss of some 300 equivalent jobs; and that the same budget
required the elimination of some 208 teaching positions?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What the Leader of the Opposition knows - and I know he is trapped now
because he is being consistently inconsistent - is this: that in the last two
years that I have been the Premier and the leader of this government, we have
increased funding to the health boards by over 20 per cent - an absolute
increase in the funding in one year alone -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: - in excess of $100 million. His Finance critic from
Ferryland, if he is still in that position, got up and pooh-poohed it by saying
there is at least $100 million wasted in health care and we wouldn't be
putting $100 million into health care, we would be cutting $100 million because
it is being wasted in health care. That is the what the Opposition are doing,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, in the last two years, as well, we had a
brand new teacher allocation formula that would have seen over 400 -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - teachers removed from the system. We reinvested over
$20 million in teaching services to keep the teachers in the system, to make
improvements, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, lets talk about where the Premier is getting
some of this money from. Over the past several budgets the government has
extracted dividends from Hydro to apply against its ballooning deficit. It took
$69.9 million in 2000, $53.3 million in 2001 and it took at least that much or
probably more in 2002. In addition, this government demands that Hydro pay a 1
per cent debt guarantee charge.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier agree that these recent layoffs at Hydro and
the application to the Public Utilities Board to increase hydro rates in the
Province are a direct result of government syphoning cash from Hydro to soften
the blow of its ever ballooning deficit?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell you this, that maybe, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we
learned a lesson over here from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador about
the value of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The people of the Province value
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as the absolute gem of public corporations. They
are proud that it is successful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: They are proud, Mr. Speaker, that it is profitable. They
begged us, as a government, to keep it as a Crown corporation. Maybe the Leader
of the Opposition is still supporting privatization which he did several years
ago. Maybe that is part of his plan, to privatize Hydro because he doesn't
seem like he wants to take any dividends from it.
They generate dividends, Mr. Speaker, for the people of the Province and we
use them to provide health care services, education services, basic municipal
services, because that is what the people wanted. The corporation generates the
revenue, it is profitable, and it is right and proper. A Crown corporation is
there for the Crown and for the people, Mr. Speaker, and it is running itself in
a wonderful fashion, it is very profitable and it should generate money for the
people of the Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier -
PREMIER GRIMES: - years and years and years into the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the only crowd that wanted to privatize Hydro
are that crowd across the House. It will never happen here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier refers to Hydro as the gem of the Province. He
has taken the debt to equity ratio, increased it, and he is heading that
corporation towards bankruptcy. That is what you are doing, Premier. Wait until
we see the tab on the Lower Churchill deal. That will be interesting.
Mr. Speaker, IBEW has indicated this weekend that Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro is cutting its workforce, while it has an application before the Public
Utilities Board for a sizeable rate increase. The union says that the company
has already laid off permanent employees and will lay off more over the coming
weeks. In addition, the company will not recall up to 180 employees who live in
rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who have worked for the company for years and
performed summer maintenance on behalf of that corporation.
Mr. Speaker, in light of the Premier's purported no lay off policy, will
the Premier undertake to personally intervene and direct Hydro not to proceed
with these layoffs?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe, Mr. Speaker, that is the way the Leader of the Opposition would
operate if his buddy was still over as the Chair of the board. Maybe that is the
way they plan to operate. That is not how we operate, and I will give you the
reason why. It is serious. We do not operate that way because we respect the law
of the land. The law of the land has established Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
as an -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The law of the land - and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to check it
out; it is in the Statutes of the Province - has created Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro as an arms-length removed Crown corporation that takes no
direction. And this is the point: By law, it does not give the Cabinet and the
government the authority to give direction to Hydro because they are to run
themselves as a proper corporation, not to be the political hacks for people
over here. That is what he would suggest, that the Premier and the government
should be able to take a Crown corporation and just go over and say: You are not
allowed to do what you want as a group of business people. You are not allowed
to make the right decisions.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to now conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: I am the Premier and I am telling you: Don't layoff
anybody.
Of course we have seen that because that is the way a dictator operates.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: That is the way a big hero operates, Mr. Speaker. Now
that is consistent with what we have seen before, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting for someone who does not
interfere with Hydro. The television cameras captured the chairman and the CEO
being dragged in to the carpet up on the eighth floor so that the Premier could
intervene in the Lower Churchill negotiations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: And you know that Premier; you know it!
Let's talk about the laws of the land. What about Trans City? What about
the Cabot Corporation that you testified in?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: What about the payments for breaking the law? What about
contravening the Public Tender Act? What about contravening the Financial
Administration Act? Who breaks the law around here, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question; he is on a supplementary.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Would the Premier not agree that as a result of irresponsible, fiscal
mismanagement by his government and previous Liberal governments, of which he
was a member and a Cabinet minister, that his annual bleeding of cash from
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has resulted in a significant loss of employment
for the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, plus the double whammy of
forcing them to pay higher electricity rates?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand he is getting a little perturbed today, as the Leader of the
Opposition; not particularly having a good time. But, Mr. Speaker, I can tell
you this: we have not interfered with the operation of Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro. We have, rightfully so, on behalf of the people of the Province, accepted
dividends from a very profitable company, that everybody in Newfoundland and
Labrador is delighted that they are very profitable. They have one of the very
best balance sheets anywhere in the country, Mr. Speaker.
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is treated and considered by all the bond
rating agencies as a great asset in Newfoundland and Labrador, not a liability.
They are instructed, by law, to make decisions within that corporation to run it
appropriately and properly. They, no more than anyone else, should have staff,
in any part of the operation, who are not necessary when technology has changed,
when new things are added, when new ways of doing things are found, that use
technology instead of people. So, I guess, the Leader of the Opposition today is
a champion for a few people who may be being displaced through Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro, but in any other position he will not honour any commitments
made by the government unless there is due diligence. I guess he has to make up
his mind. If he wants to be the Chair of Hydro, or the CEO of Hydro, he should
apply for the job, and I would consider him for the job, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: But in any event, today we are dealing with the general
policy of the government. We are not going to privatize Hydro. We are not going
to interfere with Hydro as a Crown corporation and, Mr. Speaker, he will speak
for himself when he answers as to what his real view is of Hydro in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will quote directly from government policy issued on November
16, 2000: The requirement for an impartial and effective public service makes it
necessary for any government to restrict some public servants from running for
political office or participating in political activities. This was first
announced in a Minute in Council Cabinet document in 1988 where it said: At any
time such an employee who falls under the restricted category at any time should
not take
part in political activities as to impair their usefulness.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier to confirm that under the
government policy politically restricted employees include individuals occupying
management positions, individuals occupying positions that have been excluded
from bargaining units, which include Crown corporations of government, agencies
of government, and all boards of government? Can the Premier confirm that is
still his government's policy?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I can tell him I would have to check as to
what the policy is. He did mention this, he referenced 1988 as being the
inception of the policy when the Progressive Conservatives, under Brian
Peckford, were the government. I can tell you one thing, in the two years that I
have been the leader I have not reviewed that policy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a final supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the Premier, just to remind him that my first statement referred to his
own policy issued by this government on November 16, 2000. Included in this
policy means any person who - and I will quote it: individuals occupying
management positions, individuals occupying positions that have been excluded
from bargaining units, which includes all agencies, all boards and all
departments of government. Can the Premier confirm that his former campaign
manager and leadership campaign worker, and now the Chair of the Petroleum
Pricing Commission, Mr. George Saunders, has been actively recruiting candidates
for the Liberal Party while holding an executive position in contravention of
this policy?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The other date they have referenced, being November 2000, I know the Province
probably would have been better off if I was the Premier at that time, but I was
not the Premier then either.
As I have indicated, in the two years and a bit that I have been Premier I
have not reviewed this policy. I can tell you one other thing, Mr. Speaker - I
can tell you and the people of the Province one other thing - Mr. Saunders, as
the Petroleum Pricing Commissioner, is doing an excellent job on behalf of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: An absolutely superb job on behalf of the people of the
Province. I have never ever had a meeting with him to try to tell him how to do
his job, and I have never discussed with him whether or not he is out - because
he happens to be, in my view, as far as I still know, a supporter of the
Liberals because of the great job we are doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I do understand that, but I am not aware of
any activities that he is doing outside of his job or within the confines and
parameters of his job. Ask the question of him directly. The media can ask Mr.
Saunders directly.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: He is quite capable of speaking for himself. I cannot
answer the question because I have not discussed it with him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier as well, and it concerns the construction at
Voisey's Bay this summer.
The Premier is on record, as is Voisey's Bay Nickel, in agreement with the
principles of adjacency regarding the hiring of people in Labrador on the
project. The adjacency principle, Mr. Speaker, is Aboriginal people first, union
members in Labrador second, qualified Labradorians third, and union members from
the Island portion of the Province followed by.
I want to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier prepared today to
assure this House that his government will include these principles in a special
project order under the Labour Relations Act to ensure that the adjacency
principle will be adhered to?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to assure the hon. member that we are confident that the company
will abide by all of its commitments, and we have set up a series of
requirements for that company to ensure that we maximize benefits for our
Province. As the company indicated last week, their development is on schedule,
it is going according to plan, it is going to be a very positive development for
our Province.
It is good to see that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be coming around
to supporting this development, according to some of his comments in the paper
last week. He is still not reassured that the full project is going to be
completed, but I assure him that it will be completed. It is going to be a great
project for this Province and you need not worry that the company is going to
abide by its obligations under our agreement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me ask the Premier: Seeing as how the minister has sort of shirked his
responsibility, will the Premier guarantee people in Labrador that employment at
Voisey's Bay will not be based on the generosity or lack thereof of any
company or of any trade union movement? Will this government, in its commitment
to the people of Labrador, guarantee that this will indeed be covered under a
special project order that will guarantee people in Labrador employment, as he
has professed in the past and as has Voisey's Bay Nickel did, but will he
commit to doing that through a special order rather than relying on the good
will of all the other parties involved?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, this development agreement we have with Voisey's
Bay and Inco is a good deal for this Province because we worked on getting a
good deal. We ensured this project would not go ahead without a deal that is
going to maximize benefits for our Province. The jobs and the benefits that are
going to be provided are not going to be provided as a result of the generosity
of Inco, but as a result of the effective negotiating style and the effective
accomplishments of this government, Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: The people who have a right to the jobs as negotiated under
that agreement, and as will be assured under any further regulations we need to
make, will get the jobs that have been guaranteed to them by our government and
by the collective agreement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition in this House on behalf of the people who
live in Pollard's Point and Sop's Arm in the White Bay area. The prayer of
the petition, Mr. Speaker, reads:
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have indicated that they
may close the community clinic at Pollard's Point; and
WHEREAS the residents of Pollard's Point and Sop's Arm are very concerned
about the possibility of losing their community clinic; and
WHEREAS this will leave the residents with only one clinic operating in that
area, in Jackson's Arm;
THEREFORE we petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to maintain
both clinics, one at Pollard's Arm and one at Jackson's Arm.
Mr. Speaker, this clinic that has been operating at Sop's Arm - Sop's Arm
and Jackson's Arm are close to each other, and they have been sharing a
physician for a number of years now. All of a sudden, when they were successful
in finally recruiting a physician and leaving some hope for the people of that
area, finally now that they have a physician in the area there has been a
decision to close one of the clinics, one that has been operating in conjunction
with the one in Jackson's Arm for many years.
It was always the plan, as we understand it, Mr. Speaker, to have one
physician servicing both communities, sharing the service and continuing with
those effectively functioning clinics that have been there for a number of
years. Now, Mr. Speaker, having been successful, the community finally excited
about getting a physician, only to hear last week that their clinic is going to
close. Not only was it going to close, it was a total surprise to them. There
has not been any consultation, no discussion, with the people who live in that
community at all. This was a total surprise to them.
They had assumed that the service they had enjoyed for years and years was
going to continue. Now, all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, they find themselves
caught behind the eight ball. A new physician arrives in town and has been told
that she will only operate in one clinic, and that is the one in Jackson's
Arm.
One of the unfortunate things about this, Mr. Speaker, is that it has pitted
the communities of Sop's Arm and Pollard's Point against the community of
Jackson's Arm because they have been told in that region there will only be
one clinic. Now, what you have is communities fighting against each other to
maintain a service in their community when, in fact, the reality of it is that
both of those communities have worked harmoniously together in the past, have
shared the same services of a physician, have shared the services of clinics
together, and have worked together as communities to make it an enjoyable place
for a physician to live and, in fact, have assisted the health board in trying
to recruit a physician for their area. Unfortunately, with this decision, they
are not only going to be finding themselves without the medical services they
have enjoyed for many, many years, but are now going to find themselves in a
dispute with their neighbours. They are asking this government to make a
decision immediately to continue with the practice that has been enjoyed in that
area for many, many years.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: This is not adding something new; just continue with
the current practice.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this House to bring forth a petition from the residents of
Georgetown. The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
WHEREAS the roads in the community of Georgetown have deteriorated to a point
that the safety of motorists and pedestrians is being compromised; and
WHEREAS access to residences, businesses, churches, postal facilities and
recreation areas have been seriously affected; and
WHEREAS little, if any, maintenance and repairs are carried out on an annual
basis;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to make a commitment to include the upgrading of this road system in its annual
capital disbursement for the upcoming fiscal year;
As is duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I bring this to the attention of the House because it was
brought to my attention by a petition which was signed by well over 100 of the
residents of Georgetown. The point of the matter is that this road system has
been there since the community began. The particular part of the road that I
want to draw to your attention is the unpaved
section of that particular road
system, and it leads to a business. At the end of the road there is a business.
This individual is an entrepreneur who is trying to run a business. Obviously,
in order for her business to be successful, she needs the travelling public.
Because the road is in such deplorable state at any time of year - this is
not just during the spring or the winter but all through the year - they are
calling upon me to bring it to this House. A copy of this petition has gone to
the minister. It is their desire to make the minister aware of the situation and
to ask for, again, just the regular maintenance. It is unfortunate that this
gravel road is at a state where it is mucky, the potholes are causing damage to
the vehicles, and because it is causing damage to the vehicles many people are
not patronizing this particular small business in order to keep that business
going.
Again, Mr. Speaker, they are not asking for pavement. They are simply asking
that this
section of the road in particular be given the treatment it needs to
bring it up to a standard of a gravel road, not necessarily a paved road.
Certainly, pavement would be ideal because it would be the answer to it all.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. HEDDERSON: Again, in closing, I ask the minister to take this
petition seriously and to review the situation in the hope that this spring
maybe the money will become available to do the upgrading required.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 1, Mr. Speaker, Committee of Supply, Resolution and Bill
2 Respecting the Granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on
Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I want to speak today for a few minutes on this particular bill that is
before the House. This bill here is looking for approval for $1,349,772,200.
That is a bill, I might add, Madam Chairperson, that the minister wants approved
in three days - three single days. She states in her statement in the House the
last day - and she is trying to use sympathy and touch on sympathy strings
around this Province if we do not approve it. She goes on to say, it is
important that we have Royal Assent by March 26. That is Wednesday. It is
Private Members' Day on Wednesday. This bill has to be dealt with by tomorrow.
It was only introduced and started debating on Thursday, in three days. She is
trying to say that we need that to pay people, for social assistance recipients,
especially in Labrador.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you how it differs, I say to the Government
House Leader. If they would give me time, Madam Chairperson, I will tell how it
differs.
That same member, the Government House Leader, stood in this House and wanted
to adopt a parliamentary calendar. The calender states that we meet on the
second Monday of March, March 10. This government did not open this House until
March 18, eight days beyond the point that was agreed. The Government House
Leader - I do not know but he was a member of the committee. I vice-chaired that
committee.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: He chaired the committee, and when we requested -
MR. LUSH: (Inaudible). Eight days is (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, the Government House Leader, the Member
for Terra Nova, I would like him to give the courtesy of being able to speak for
ten or fifteen minutes on this topic, and afford that courtesy, instead of
singing out and interfering with the normal procedure in this House. I think it
is disgraceful. A Government House Leader should set an example in this House,
not one that should be out dictating and pointing fingers and so on in this
House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: He should be setting an example to raise the level of
decorum in this House to a standard where people can sit back and listen to good
discussion going on in the House, not the nonsense that you have to put up with
in here, Madam Chairperson. It is utterly ridiculous.
Now, they are playing on the sympathies; if we do not approve it, the people
in Labrador will not get their social assistance cheques, the Minister of
Finance said. Now that is abhorrent, I would say. That is ridiculous, to play on
the sentiments of people who are depending on a social assistance cheque,
because they would not call this House together until eight days beyond the date
that we agreed here in this House. Then the Government House Leader starts to
jump up and get excited about it.
Now, I do not know if the minister knows what the bill is about. She said
here in this House on Thursday, and I quote what she said in this House, and I
am really confused by what she said. She said that the purpose of Interim Supply
will recognize that providing it you are merely allowing departments to continue
on with programs and services that they are currently providing. That is what
the minister said. We just want approval to spend $1.35 billion to carry on with
programs that are already here.
Well, Minister, you contradicted yourself Thursday in the same statement. You
said on page 68 in Hansard that this "...bill... has funding for two new
expenditure initiatives..." Then you turned around - it is in Hansard on
page 69 - and said: it is only to carry on with ongoing programs. Minister, you
have to make up your mind. Do you know what this bill is about? How do you
expect the people of the Province to understand it when the Minister of Finance
contradicts herself seven paragraphs later and says it is ongoing, and then she
says: Two new initiatives. It is pretty confusing for ordinary people out there
to understand what Interim Supply is.
Interim Supply is a purpose of a bill to allow the wheels of government to go
forth. I do not think it is adequate time in three days to debate how this
government wants approval to spend $1,350,000,000 over the next three months.
She wants approval to spend that in three days, when they sat home for over a
week and would not open the House. I think that is wrong. Madam Chairperson,
that is wrong. It is an affront to the democratic principles that we agreed to
follow here in this House. It is an affront to it and does not allow people to
debate the important issues of government expenditures. I have every reason to
be skeptical how this very government on government expenditures - I do not
trust this government, and that is why we need as much time as we can to flush
out every single item.
We are talking about - and the Premier today questioned the law of the land.
Well, if you look at the law of the land - on Trans City, I will make reference
to. The lowest bidder on Trans City was $761,388; N.D. Dobbin. The highest
bidder, $928,732. The lower happened to be a PC and the higher was a Liberal.
Who got it? The higher bidder! We paid $167,000 more and amortized over thirty
years. It cost the taxpayers $5 million extra to give it to a Liberal crony. Is
that democracy and why they don't want to debate bills here in this House?
In Port Saunders the lower bidder was N.D. Dobbin, who is a noted political
stripe of being a PC supporter. The higher bidder again was Trans City, $266,000
more and amortized over thirty years, $7,997,000, almost $8 million, to a
Liberal supporter as opposed to a PC. It violated the Public Tender Act.
We went on to St. Lawrence, and Health Care Developers were the lowest. I do
not know them personally or what political stripe, but I do know that $203,000
higher was the same Trans City Liberal supporters who put money in the coffers
of this Province and that cost over $6 million. In all total, $19 million-plus
that taxpayers shelled out to give a tender to their own friends. When you hold
a public tender you should go with the lower bid, but that government went every
step of the way to the Supreme Court to defend their own buddies and the Supreme
Court said: you violated the laws of the Province, you broke your Public Tender
Act.
We had cases of amnesia and memory loss worst than the Premier had here in
Question Period today, I might add. We have more serious cases. They could not
remember. He couldn't remember his policy from 2000. God, help us! He sat
around Cabinet. He sat around as the Premier's parliamentary assistant, and
then as a minister during the years of Liberal government. He sat around and
allowed this travesty of injustice of $19 million of taxpayers' money. Then he
is talking about wastage; $100 million he used as a quote that I said. I have
never used that quote. I have never used it. The Premier could not find it.
Madam Chairperson, he read out and twisted words in this House before that
were far from saying that, but I can tell you, we will find a significant waste
of money cut out, passing out, violating public tender. Also, let me tell you,
we had public hearings before the Public Accounts just recently. One other
example, almost $1 million on the Coastal Labrador Marine Service, according to
the Auditor General, was given to the Woodward Group of Companies without public
tender, violating the deal in which they can operate; given to them.
AN HON. MEMBER: For what?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, for what ? I would ask the Premier: For what was it
given to them? That is what I would ask him. For what? Given to them without - I
certainly know what it was given for, I can tell you. I have read the volumes of
information on Public Accounts and questions in Public Accounts on these issues.
It was given, almost $1 million, without public tender and violated the Public
Tender Act of this Province. That is what is going on in this Province. They do
not want to hear it, Madam Chairperson.
Then we had Atlantic Leasing, another noted PC, that they would not renew.
They went to court and lost, and cost millions again to the taxpayers of this
Province. Also, Coastal Excavating, a known PC political connection - they lost
at every stage of the court, the government did, and went to Supreme Court and
had to pay them because they were so vindictive that a PC would get a lower bid
on a contract. Look, the purpose -
MR. SWEENEY: Just like in the 1980s. That is your (inaudible) government
(inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, Madam Chairperson,
is interrupting. I would like to have a little bit of courtesy from people here
in this House.
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: A little bit of courtesy for people who are speaking here.
The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is shouting out and trying to interfere
with it. I do not care what anybody did before. I do not care what anybody did
in the 1980s or the 1970s or the 1990s. What I care about, Madam Chairperson, is
the taxpayers of this Province. The taxpayers of this Province should get the
best return on the taxpayers' money in this Province, and I do not care what
government of the day is in power.
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would just like to make a few brief comments with respect to the debate on
Interim Supply. My good friend from Ferryland, the Member for Ferryland, my next
door neighbour in the real world, that I know, Madam Chair, is not trying to be
everything to all people because he is consistent. He has always been
consistent, and I am sure that he was embarrassed when he heard another former
leader - because he was the former leader of the party - heard another former
leader of the party, the Member for Kilbride, saying that in their policy book
they would be left of center. Because, I can tell you, the Member for Ferryland,
in his whole life, has never run for anything that is left of center. He is a
Tory, he makes no apologies for it. He is a right-winger, and that is what you
are supposed to be in politics, Madam Chair. You are supposed to believe
something. You are supposed to stand for something. He just said then that he
knows there is $100 million in waste that he can cut out of government. He can
cut it out. He is the finance critic. Now, he is going to be displaced by the
great Ms Marshall, who has said - and I relate to the one that he talked about,
Madam Chair -
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
PREMIER GRIMES: No, no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER GRIMES: The point is this, Madam Chair -
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chair, a point of order.
MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to make sure it is clear what I heard. Does that mean the Premier
has already conceded defeat in the next election and there is going to be a new
Finance Minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
No, what I am saying, quite clearly - and I know they would like the
explanation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
What I am saying, quite clearly, is what they already know, that inside their
caucus the little dictator has already replaced the Member for Ferryland in his
discussions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER GRIMES: He has already replaced him and he knows it. He is not
involved in any of the discussions anymore, and he knows it. That is the
unfortunate part, as do the members opposite, because Ms Marshall, in talking
about running, said: I am only running for this party because the leader has
said that he will implement the things that I suggest and propose. So he is not
listening to the Member for Ferryland anymore, Madam Chair, he is listening to
Ms Marshall, the former Auditor General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Madam Chair, I can tell you this, the Member for
Ferryland is not trying to be a left-winger and middle of the road, he is a
proud right-winger. He knows where to find $100 million in waste, at least. So
somebody is going out the door, somebody is not safe, somebody is cleaned out
here and he knows it.
Madam Chair, just a couple of points. The Member for Ferryland tried to talk
about the fact that we are eight days late coming to the Legislature; talking
about a rush in the debate. He knows two things. He knows that the Interim
Supply debate, for all intents and purposes, is routine. It is a formality. We
are going to present a budget here on Thursday that we will have over two months
to debate. No rush, over two months to debate. We came here with the agreement
of his House Leader on the date that we came here. He might not have been
involved in the discussion. I guess he is not involved in any discussions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER GRIMES: Are you in the caucus? Are you a part of the caucus? You
should go to a caucus meeting and find out what your House Leader and your
leader are agreeing to. We opened the Legislature on a date agreed to by your
party, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: The other thing is this, if he was so offended by being
here late, as he describes it, he could have done like many politicians have
done in the past, he could have gone out with the television cameras and knocked
on the door of the Legislature and demanded that it be opened because he was
being deprived the right to come in and debate something critically important.
Did we hear anything from the Member for Ferryland about wanting to come to the
Legislature? Not one word, not a word, Madam Chair, not a single utterance until
today.
Madam Chair, the Leader of the Opposition today, and all the members of their
caucus, are feeling the heat, because they know they are trapped by the words
from the Member for St. John's East in Deer Lake where he said, they would cut
and slash and burn and nothing is safe, nothing is sacred, no commitments are
going to be kept by this government, we are going to make up our own mind. They
are so full of themselves, that if they form the government they are going to
decide what is important in education, not what the previous crowd decided, they
are going to decide what is important in health care, not what the previous
crowd decided, no commitments will be honored. Now, it is in black and white in
the official record of the House of Assembly from the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: So from that, from no commitments being honored to
getting a call from the President of NAPE saying, what does that mean about us,
he said: Oh, oh, oh! Your commitment is okay. I didn't mean you, you are okay.
Trust me, I didn't mean to say that. When I said that, I didn't mean you.
The President of NAPE calls: What about the fact that you said no commitment
will be honored? He said: Oh, I didn't mean you. Your commitment is okay.
Yours is alright.
Now, this was agreed to, by the way, by the whole caucus, so we are told, I
and my caucus, the whole caucus, the same crowd, every single one of them, the
Member for St. John's South, the same person who voted in a caucus meeting to
not accept Ron Dawe under any set of circumstances. He voted for it in a caucus
meeting. The Member for White Bay North voted in a caucus meeting not to allow
certain people to run for this party. He is okay. I am okay, I am allowed to
run, I am a fine person, but I am allowed to cast judgement on some other
individual in the Province and say: You cannot come in here under any set of
circumstances and sit next to me. You are not worthy to be considered to sit in
this Legislature.
That is the same group, Madam Chair, who sat in the caucus and said, no
commitments will be honored by us, and as soon as the doctors called they said:
Oh, we didn't mean to talk about you, doctors. As soon as NAPE called they
said: Oh, we didn't mean to talk about you, NAPE members. As soon as CUPE
called they said: Oh, we didn't mean to talk about you, CUPE. As soon as the
nurses called they said: Oh, we didn't mean to talk about you, nurses. So,
Madam Chair, who are they talking about? They are not talking about anybody. The
Leader is just making a speech. He is trying to be a big hero to somebody by
saying: No commitments will be honored, but as soon as he is asked by
individuals about their commitment he tells them all: Oh, you are okay.
We would love the opportunity to get to the bottom of this over time, because
on this side we tell people what we stand for. We tell people what we believe
in. We tell people what our plan is. We tell people what we are going to do. We
have a track record that says that, when we make a commitment, we keep it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: I look forward to seeing more of the view - the Member
for Ferryland again talked about the Woodward Group of Companies and some work
that was given not tendered. It was all about extending the ferry services to
the coastal communities in Labrador at the request of the people from Labrador.
It was decided to extend the service, and it was going to cost a bit of extra
money.
Of course, the former Auditor General would say: You cannot do that because
it is not in the budget, so you cannot even entertain the concept. Tell the
people from Labrador to go home, do not talk to us. Do not ask to have goods
delivered to your communities. Do not ask to have a ferry come up so you can
actually travel back and forth and see people because there is no ice yet. Do
not even entertain the notion.
That is their view, Madam Chair. That is what the Member for Ferryland just
used in the example because he wants to talk about it without giving any detail,
without talking about what really happened, without talking about a choice being
made to meet the needs of the people of the Province and defending to everybody
in the Province why we made that choice, as a government, and why we were proud
to do it, rather than to feel hog-tied because some Auditor General said: You
must live right by the line in the book, you must exercise no judgement, and you
must not meet the needs of the people under any set of circumstances.
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. Premier's time is up.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
The Premier is giving the wrong impression. I am not talking about extending
a costal service to Labrador. I am talking about not going to public tender on
almost a million dollars worth of work and give it to the Woodward Group of
Companies without public tender.
Are the taxpayers best served without public tender? My feeling is, no. Is
this the same Premier who talks about not allowing things? The same one who told
us that he could not sleep, to have Danny Dumeresque in his party, and then he
apologized? The Premier tries to play both sides. The Premier speaks one thing
and he does something different. That is what he does.
Madam Chair, what we want to do is see the wise use of taxpayers' money. I
do not think it is a wise use of taxpayers' money when we pay almost $1
million to anybody, whether it is a Liberal supporter or not, whether it is the
Woodward Group of Companies or whoever it is, without going to public tender. I
think that is wrong, Madam Chairperson. That is not the proper use.
It is not right when you give tenders out to the higher bidders and cost this
Province $19 million extra in the long haul. That is money that is coming out of
the taxpayers of this Province. Many of them are the very same people who cannot
even afford to put oil in their tanks or pay their electrical bills. That is
wrong.
The same way with the Cabot Corporation. Because they happened to be branded
as PCs, they were fired from their jobs, and won it and got redress in the
courts of the Province. That is the type of anarchy, dictatorship, that is going
on in this Province, and it is about time that has to stop.
This Premier sat around the table with the Premiers and the Cabinet that
supported those decisions here, and he is playing right along and endorsing
those decisions. Then he talks today in the House about Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro; the very Premier who sat as a minister here, who voted to get
rid of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and privatize it. Only one person had the
gumption, and that was not a Cabinet minister, to oppose it out of the entire
caucus. Are you trying to tell me that everybody over there at the time thought
that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was better served in private hands? Well,
today they are singing a different tune because they have milked it for ten of
millions of dollars here. I asked a question in the House, the very same
question three years ago, that the Leader of the Opposition then asked today. Is
this going to drive up rates in our Province? Oh, no, it is not going to drive
up rates.
Our leader today asked the question on layoffs. They did not have the money
to pay out. They did not have it, they have to borrow it. When you borrow money,
you increase your cost. How do you reduce those costs? You lay off people. This
government has presided over the largest layoff in the history of this Province
in the public service, and they are out preaching something different. They have
done it in health care. They have done it, they might say, to put more money
into health care, but they have rolled into the health care budget family and
rehabilitative services that were not there before. They have rolled child
protection and youth services in there, that were not there before. They have
rolled other areas in to give it a larger department, of course, but the budgets
have gone up anyway.
There were 3,100 hospital beds in this Province when that government came
into power. Today, there are about 1,700. Fourteen hundred beds and the jobs
that go with it in this Province, and why people out in nursing homes today
cannot get out of bed. One man is 102 years of age and I spoke with his son.
They came to get him out of bed about 11 o'clock in the morning and he said
the day is nearly over. That man is used to being up 6 o'clock in the morning.
I went in on his one hundredth birthday. He said to me: I cut myself shaving
this morning about 5:30. Those type of things, it is a shame that the seniors of
our Province who have lived and toiled and worked in our Province are neglected
and being subject to indiscriminate cutting without doing proper evaluations.
Our Health critic has called for a proper assessment. I spoke with a person
in one of those homes recently and the worker said to me: We will never get
these people out of the building in case of a fire. How do you get eleven and
twelve and thirteen people out of bed, in the case of a fire?
They are down to the minimum levels now for fire protection. If anything ever
happened, people could die in their beds because of understaffing. That is a
possibility, and we want to -
AN HON. MEMBER: Fear mongering.
MR. SULLIVAN: It is not fear mongering. People are not allowed to leave.
I know people have been told -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Member for Bellevue, the demoted minister from
Bellevue, that I spoke to a person who told me, even to leave for personal
reasons to try to get off work, you were not allowed to leave because we are
down to the minimum standards for protection and safety of these people here.
That is what they are down to now; that is what it is becoming. You have cut
the guts out of health care. You have laid off hundreds of teachers over the
last number of years, and here is what you say: but we could have laid off more.
Look, there is a certain base that is needed. As you increase students, you
do not increase teachers proportionately. You get economies with larger numbers,
and when you reverse them you do not get all the economies. When you cut down
lower, you do not lay off the same ratio that you have always added. If you add
on teachers, you need a certain amount of administration. If you have a school
of five people, you still need a teacher. If you have a school of ten, you still
need a teacher. You do not get the same economies.
MR. BARRETT: Tell us what you are going to do.
MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Bellevue, the newly demoted minister, if he
would keep quiet, I might get a chance to be able to tell him what I might do.
I can tell you one thing, what we will not do, we will not do what this
government has done. We will not do what this government has done, and I can
tell you -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: The member wanted to know what we would do, Madam
Chairperson. I will tell him. We will not do what you have done. We will not go
off eliminating positions and so on out here in the public service, massive
layoffs in the public service. That will not happen, I can tell the Member for
Bellevue. It will not happen here, and the member knows it quite well.
I want to use another example, and my colleague from Cape St. Francis knows
this only too well.
MR. BARRETT: You do not have the monopoly on brains, Danny Williams. You
might be a dictator but you do not have the monopoly on brains.
MR. SULLIVAN: I would ask, Madam Chairperson, the Member for Bellevue to
stop shouting and interfering here in the House.
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Why would a government of today buy a rustbucket, a member
called it, $500,000 U.S., bought a boat in Estonia for the ferry service here in
our Province and, do you know what? It is now gone up in the $8 million range
and it could be $10 million, and they would not even pay for federal government
inspectors to go over there. They brought it back and spent millions and
millions and millions, from $5 million to $7 million and now up around $8
million - it could be $10 million - and now it is delayed again. For anybody who
knows, it is not going to be ready for June any more. It is going to be August
now, and possibly September before it is ready. It is going to be later, and how
much do we know? I asked a question, what would it cost? Government officials
could not tell me in public accounts what it is going to cost. They do not know
how much more it is going to cost. The argument they use now is: But, look, we
are employing people out in Clarenville. I said: It is great to have local
people here working, but that is not the issue. The issue is, the taxpayers of
this Province deserve to have officials here, and ministers, who are going to be
responsible over their money. They are going to see that money spent is money
put to use, that can be used in our Province, not $10 million later. We could
have bought a brand new ferry for $14.5 million with no major maintenance costs
for probably fifteen or twenty years. We bought an old boat with millions and
millions of dollars spent, and that is just not adequate. We have to look at
more efficient use of taxpayers' money.
We have a bill before this House that is looking for expenditure all over the
place, and obviously that is standard Interim Supply, but I cannot figure out
why the minister would tell us that this bill is only dealing with paying for
programs that are ongoing. That is what she said on page 69 of Hansard on
Thursday. Then she said, we have two new funding initiatives in this.
Do we have funding initiatives in this or don't we? Let's see the
breakdowns, I say to the minister. Give us the detailed breakdowns to see if you
are telling the truth. Which is true? Your statement on page 68 or the one that
contradicts it on page 69? Which statement is true? We deserve the right to know
if it is ongoing programs or you are putting new programs in an Interim Supply
bill. The minister, if she does not know, should find out and come back to this
House and tell us before this bill is passed here in this House. You have a
right to tell the people of this Province what Interim Supply is, and if it is
for new programs or if it is for ongoing. You have asked that, and you have said
it here. I will just quote it - the minister is nodding - in case she does not
know where I am referring to her comments. On page 68, she said, "The
2003-2004 Interim Supply bill includes, this year, funding for two new
expenditure initiatives of which, I think, Members of the House of Assembly are
familiar with." She goes on to make reference of a broadband initiative,
and she talks about an agrifoods program. Then she goes on, on the next page -
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that his time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: Just to finish with this sentence. She said -
MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SULLIVAN: - most people will recognize that in Interim Supply we are
merely allowing departments to continue on with programs and services they are
currently providing.
Which is it, Minister? Are there new initiatives here or just old initiatives
being carried on until the Budget is approved?
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I thank you, Madam Chair.
I am very pleased today to stand and speak on Interim Supply, because it is a
very important issue.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Madam Chairperson.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I haven't even started. I am not shouting loud enough?
What is it?
MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I just want to establish, before it goes too far in
the proceedings here, that a statement made here by the Premier in this House is
not accurate and I want to ask the Premier to withdraw it.
There was no agreement reached by members of this House on the opening of the
House. I said that you should follow the parliamentary calendar on March 10, the
second Monday of March. That is what the calendar states. There was no agreement
by anyone on this side of the House. That is an incorrect statement and I would
expect the Premier, when he returns, to stand here and withdraw that and
apologize for giving the wrong impression to the public of our Province.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, if the hon. gentleman wants to engage in
triviality, let me point out to him, first of all, that he talks about the House
being delayed eight or nine days. The House was delayed three debating days,
Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, because Wednesday is not a debating day. I suggest
to him, I do not know that - there was no agreement. We would simply be called
up. We have an agreement in our calendar. By the same token, that there is an
agreement to open, there is also an agreement to close, I tell the hon.
gentleman, and his party has not been vigilant about closing either.
MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am very happy today to speak about Interim Supply. I will say to the member
opposite, I am sure he did not fully read the information that was in Hansard.
He needs to read the Hansard and to be clear on exactly what was said.
I can go on by answering the question. First of all, clearly there is a
request for $1.3 billion as part of Interim Supply. It is a part that is brought
to the House every year. I am sure if the people of the Province read the speech
from last year, the member opposite stood up and said the same thing about
trying to pull the heartstrings. The fact is: It might be pulling the
heartstrings from the Member for Ferryland's perspective, but getting people
out their social assistance cheques is not pulling the heartstrings. It is about
providing people with the money they need to live, and we take that very
seriously, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is really a function of what this House is supposed
to do and why we are here.
He went on to say that really he does not trust this government. Really?
Well, do you know something? I am wondering, really, about the people of the
Province trusting the PCs and where they are coming from, because people are
quite nervous. Look at the line of questions today in Question Period. Why, all
of a sudden, the contradiction to what you said, to what you really meant? I
guess the trusting
part is a little bit slim and not quite as transparent as
perhaps people would like, because the people in Corner Brook who were there,
and the media that were there, certainly expressed a lot of concern about the
trust-me attitude, particularly when they try to align, very clearly, the Tories
in this Province to Mike Harris' Tories, and to the common sense revolution.
What was the common sense revolution all about?
AN HON. MEMBER: Firing.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, it was about firing people. It was about reducing
government. What is government? Government is the people. Eighty to ninety per
cent of government is people. If you are going to reduce the government, you are
reducing people. Let's call a spade a spade. Let's be truly transparent, if
that is what you are, and not hide behind what you said but what you really
meant.
What else does it talk about? It talks about downsizing government. That is
the Mike Harris common sense revolution which the people who heard the
presentation from the Member for St. John's East aligned those comments to.
Getting back to a more specific issue, every single year Interim Supply is
brought forward to the House. It is brought forward to allow programs and
services to continue for the people of the Province. It is very difficult to say
it is routine because $1.3 billion is not routine, not routine to any of us. It
is a very important part of how we deliver the programs and services.
There is no misinformation, and I would say to the Member for Ferryland he
needs to read the full transcript of Hansard to understand really what was
presented. He knows the difference. Again, I know it is about trying to create
misinformation for the people of the Province. I have done this Interim Supply
Bill now for the last three budgets. It is something that is put forward to
allow a government to proceed with programs and services until the main supply,
or the main budget, is passed. That is what it is about.
Now, I said normally in Interim Supply you talk about the expenditures that
are used for the programs and services currently in place. However, I did say
and I will say it again, it is not normally intended to fund new services.
However, if it is brought to the House it can in fact be used to fund new
services, and I spoke about the two new services. I say to the member opposite
to read Hansard to understand, or ask his colleagues who were here to hear the
presentation on Thursday.
The Interim Supply Bill, while it is not normally intended to introduce new
services and fund new services, it is possible for the bill to authorize new
services. I referred, when I spoke on Thursday, to the comments that were made,
first of all, in the Throne Speech about broadband and how we were hoping that
rather than hold it up, if the money came forward from the federal government
and the public sector partner, that we would move forward to implement the $5
million allocation for broadband. That was discussed on Thursday and I am only
too happy to speak to it today. As I mentioned on Thursday, my colleague, the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development would only be too happy to
elaborate more about it.
The other new service - and I mentioned both of them Thursday but for the
purpose of the member who does not clearly understand what the issues are about,
I am only too happy to mention for him again, and I will. The first one was the
broadband, hoping the federal government will come onside with the $5 million,
and we are looking for a private sector partner to do this. The second one is an
Agriculture Policy Framework. We all know this was a new program that was put in
place to replace the Safety Nets Program and it is called the Agriculture Policy
Framework. It is included in the department. Again, because of our short season
in this Province, we were hoping that we could allocate this $6.5 million for
beginning the program. I am sure all of the farmers in this Province, all of the
people who depend on that industry, would be very happy to hear. That is why we
are putting it forward. It is a new program, because it is a new program
announced by the federal government. It is called the Agriculture Policy
Framework. It is to replace the existing Safety Nets Program that was in place
for the federal government and it is under - what it does is that it allows the
programs to enhance the core programs around forestry industry. It also goes on
to talk about work around science and innovation, renewal, food safety, food
quality, all that will help employ and ensure long-term stability.
So these are the two new programs that I talked about on Thursday. I also
offered the opportunity for both of my colleagues to mention that and I am sure
they would be happy to do so today.
Further, I do want to say, and I will say it again because it is important.
Interim Supply would need to be passed by tomorrow afternoon. We can still
debate fully, because this is only a portion of the Budget. As the Premier
mentioned, we have the next number of weeks to discuss the full Budget and what
each of these allocations mean. The amount of money was read out, which
departments are requesting what amount of money and what it is used for. Again,
each of the ministers would only be too happy to speak about that and how these
funds are being used.
This is a bill that is put forward every year. Again, as I said, it is very
important for the programs and services to be offered, but most importantly -
call it pulling on your heart strings, I call it a fact of life - it is to allow
the people who are receiving social assistance, specifically in Labrador, to
meet the requirements so that they can receive their cheques on time.
If you were to read the speech last year from the Member for Ferryland, he
started off the same way, about opening up the House and doing all these things.
Everybody knows we need to do this. Everybody knows that it is an important
issue. It is one that allows for much more debate when the House reopens, and we
talked about the main budget which will be delivered on Thursday. I say, Madam
Chair, that there is certainly - all of the information is available and I would
encourage any of my colleagues who want to speak about the specifics.
I would say to the member opposite, one of the reasons the issue around new
programs were introduced was again to avail of money from the federal government
to make sure our season is maximized so that we can move forward with our
forestry industry and move forward with the broadband that was mentioned in the
Throne Speech. These are two programs that are hopefully going to start
immediately, with the federal government's assistance, to replace old programs
with respect to the safety nets and also for the broadband.
I thank you, Madam Chair, for your opportunity to raise this issue around
Interim Supply and speak to the importance of it. I urge members opposite to
stick to the facts and recognize that this is a very important bill and one that
will allow a lot more debate as we move on to main supply.
Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, it is important, I suppose, that in the
process of debate in the House there are times when it gets heated and people's
emotions are involved, and there are other times that has called for a sober
analysis of what is taking place.
In the last couple of days it has been very evident, since the House opened,
that the government opposite, led by the current Premier, is - as part of a
strategy - trying to ensure that, and part of a political spin, trying to
convince people in the Province that if a Progressive Conservative government
were elected that we would be about balancing the books on the backs of people.
Now, the intellectual dishonesty associated with that really is appalling.
For example, the Minister of Finance talks about wanting to stick with facts.
Let me provide some, about what type of government we would provide. For
example, Madam Chair, during the last election we said that we would immediately
reduce personal income tax by five percentage points. Now, I was leader at the
time and bore the burnt, primarily, of former Premier Tobin saying: that young
Mr. Byrne does not have a clue. How is he going to deliver public services by
reducing? It is going to cost $1 billion to do what he is doing. Now, that was
the spin in 1999.
During the election, leading economist Wade Locke confirmed that this was
possible. Now, the election occurred in February. Every member over there who
was elected in February, 1999, said it could not be done. In the fall of 1999,
six months later, I was attending the Federation of Municipalities convention in
Corner Brook when the Advisory Council on the Economy, chaired by Peter
Woodward, announced what the new policy was going to be. Guess what it was? They
called for an immediate reduction in personal income tax of five points -
immediate, right out of this book. It was embraced by the Premier at the time,
and by every member, and what did they do? They went ahead and implemented it.
Our colleague for St. John's East goes to Deer Lake to speak to Junior
Achievement - a group of young people. He talks about eliminating the payroll
tax. The next day, an editorial, which we have no control over, suggested that
we were going to form a Mike Harris type of government. Now, are we the only
ones that have called for elimination of the payroll tax? During the election of
1999, that could not happen.
MR. REID: We never mentioned the payroll tax.
MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Education says they did not mention it, but
most importantly and the most important fact that you are not in possession of
is that the only tax that the member mentioned was the payroll tax. That is the
key and that is the fact, whether you want to deal with that or not.
In March, 2001, government was pumping up its own chest in its Renewal
Strategy for Jobs and Growth, talking about how they should eliminate the
payroll tax. Everybody understands in this House that we must do it - the second
point.
If somebody wants to see what type of government we are going to be, in 1999,
during the election, we said, "FOR THE RECORD: ...A PC Government will
increase the minimum wage after commissioning a review to determine what the
appropriate level should be."
Our Leader, the Member for Humber West, announces that at a NAPE biennial
convention eighteen months ago, and what happens two weeks later? The provincial
government increases the minimum wage. We said it in 1999. Does it sound like
somebody who is trying to balance the books and slash public services? No, it
sounds like a group of people who are committed to putting more money in people's
pockets -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: - and ensuring that the level of public services and people's
ability to live and meet their financial obligations, a healthy lifestyle, is
ensured. That is what it is.
Another point of view from last year, when we talk about this government's
record, we talked about: How is it best that we can ensure that children in this
Province are protected? We talked about two things in particular under a Secure
Social Policy.
One, for the record again, and this was debated and denied and said it could
not be done by that crowd opposite - if elected - "A PC Government will
immediately establish an Office of the Children's Advocate."
Who did it? After two-and-a-half years of saying that it would not be done,
they knew it had to be done because people shamed them into doing it.
Here is the second thing that we said, "A PC Government will immediately
establish a Child and Youth Secretariat...". Now where is that?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: When we talk about the prosecution of sound public
services, I believe it was the Minister of Education that accused everyone on
Thursday of shouting and screaming, and he for one sits back and listens
intently to everybody. You are providing a great example today.
On justice matters, here is what we said during the last election: A PC
government is committed to two strong police forces in the Province, the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and will
provide the resources to our police forces to enable them to continue protecting
persons and property.
What have we seen? We have seen the RNC Association, over the last several
months, having to engage themselves in a campaign to demonstrate to people how
limited their ability is to respond to personnel, or to issues such as
protecting persons and property. My prediction is that Thursday, government will
go some way - I am hearing fifteen officers per year over three years - to put
forty-five back. It is still less.
The fact of the matter is, and the point that I am underscoring, that this is
not the type of policy that is about Mike Harris or any other right-wing agenda.
This is the type of policy that this group, and in particular this leader, is
committed to: to bringing sound, secure, public services to the people of the
Province because that is what they deserve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, the second thing we said: In recognition of
every municipality's right to govern themselves, we said a PC government will
not force amalgamation on any municipality against the wishes of its residents.
Can this government opposite say that? They cannot, because it was their
government that arbitrarily, unilaterally, forced municipalities together
without even giving them the common decency of consultation.
Madam Chair, it was our party, and it was our social conscience, that said,
if we were elected to government, that we would deal with the biggest
population, or the most emerging sector of our population, dealing with seniors
issues. What did we say? We said, and we continue to stand for this, that if we
were the government, we said then that in recognition of our aging population
and the dramatic effects that seniors are feeling in society today, that we
would put in place a seniors' secretariat.
Another point we made: In recognition - and we said it here - of what people
are feeling, and the pinch that they are in, that we would rebate the HST
portion of utility bills to put some money back in those who are hurting the
most. Does that sound like a crowd who are going to slash, cut and not deal with
the human condition? Not on your life, I say to the members opposite.
Madam Chair, when it comes to, for example, the issue of protection of our
resources, during the last election the gentlemen and ladies opposite who were
part of the government, were pursuing actively an opportunity to ship bulk water
out of this Province. Was it them that said to the people of the Province this -
because this is what we said: For the record, a PC government would introduce
legislation to ensure all fresh water exported from Newfoundland and Labrador is
first fully processed in Newfoundland and Labrador, and would forbid the export
in bulk of fresh water from this Province. That was us! That was ours, not
theirs.
Madam Chair, I will say to you, as one member of this caucus, and one member
of the Official Opposition, and I know all members opposite feel the same way,
that when we see the type of tripe coming from members opposite to try to spin a
political spin to save their own political hides in the next election, just to
say that we are going to be some right-wing, neo-conservative opposition that
would cut the guts and stomach out of everybody, we will not let that go
unchallenged, because our record on that is on a much higher plane than yours.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I am glad to have a few words in the debate this
afternoon and to talk about some of the great things that this government is
doing, to talk about some of the great things that we will be asking for money
from this Interim Supply to pay for the services that we will be providing the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Madam Chair, a lot of philosophical debate is going on this afternoon. I
remember engaging in a similar philosophical debate back many years ago when I
was sitting over there - way up in the air over there, when we were on the tenth
or the eleventh floor - and there were some of us then who were philosophizing
about left-wing, right-wing, because, after all, we all do have a policy. We are
regarded here, on this side of the House, as having a policy that adheres to
Liberal philosophy, and on that side of the House, obviously, they adhere to a
policy that adheres to Conservative, Tory, policy. We know what that policy is,
but obviously this poor gentleman who was a Tory all his life did not, and when
we were talking about left-wing, right-wing, centre, he gets up and says: Mr.
Speaker, I do not know what all this talk is about left-wing or right-wing or
centre. All I know is, I am a Tory and I am happy to be one.
That is a fact. It is in Hansard. He absolutely did not know that he was
left-wing, right-wing or centre.
Well, Madam Chair, I know what I am. I know what I am. I know that I
represent a government that is progressive. I represent a government that is
progressive with respect to policy, social policy for its people. We have
demonstrated it this year, taken one of the most historical reforms ever in
Canada by developing a social strategy and linking that strategy with our
economic strategy and there are people on the other side who know about that
great development, know what has happened over the past couple of years in
developing that social strategy and enunciating what we believe about social
programs.
One of the great benefits of that, one of the great pieces of legislation was
the piece of legislation introduced in this House by the Department of Human
Resources when we brought in the Income and Employment Support bill, one of the
most revolutionary bills ever brought in by any government in this Province, by
any government in Canada; this great social reform that is going to bring great
benefits to the people of this Province.
MS S. OSBORNE: The only revolution would be the parents of those four
children (inaudible).
MR. LUSH: I do not know what the hon. Member for St. John's West is
saying. She is muttering that she does not like the bill, that she doesn't
like this great reform that was brought in, this great social reform. I would
say the hon. member would have liked to have been a part of it. She would
probably have liked to have been the government that brought that in.
MS S. OSBORNE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's West, on a point of
order.
MS S. OSBORNE: Merely, what I was saying to the speaker, to my colleague,
is that I don't like a strategy that would cause this Province to have the
highest number of children in this nation living in poverty. That is what I
said, Sir, thank you.
AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-six point two per cent.
MS S. OSBORNE: Twenty-six point two per cent.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: That said, these statistics are always unfortunate. We always
work towards trying to improve these statistics, hon. Chair. If the hon. Member
for St. John's West thinks that is a statistic she can overturn in a very
short while, she has some other thinking to do.
What we have done is a step towards improving the quality and the standard of
life of all people in this Province, from the lowest income, Madam Chair, to
those on the highest income, to try and bring about some balance, some fairness,
so that we can all enjoy a standard of living, so that we can all have a
standard of education, that will help us to improve our lives, so that we can
all have a health standard, Madam Chair, that will make us able to be healthy
people. That is the plan of this social policy, of this social strategy, and it
is a forward, progressive piece of legislation.
Sure, we can look into it and see flaws in it. We can see that there are some
people not at the level they should be. Madam Chair, that is probably the way
that things will be forever. We will always have those people. That doesn't
stop a government from reforming, that doesn't stop a government from trying
to bring self-esteem to people, that doesn't stop a government from trying to
bring dignity to people, and that is what we have done with this Income and
Employment Bill. That is what we have done, to bring some degree of self-esteem
people, to bring some degree of dignity to people.
When that bill starts filtering its way through all of the areas where it has
to infiltrate itself, that is going to be a very beneficial bill to the people
of this Province, to the poor people of this Province, to those people on low
income. They are going to see the benefit of that bill, Madam Chair, and it is
going to be a great reform of this government. I am so proud that we are asking
hon. members opposite today to support an Interim Supply that is going to
support education.
Madam Chair, I ask: Is there a government, has there been a government, has
there ever been a government, that has gotten the accomplishments in education
that this government has this day? Any fair-minded person, any logical thinking
person, could not answer that question, Madam Chair, but in the positive. They
could not answer that question but with a strong affirmative yes, that there is
not a government in this Province, there is not a government past, that has had
the record that this government has had in education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: What a fantastic record! What reform they have brought about.
Honourable gentlemen and ladies opposite all went to school. They know the
kind of educational system they went through. They knew how badly it needed to
be reformed. They knew that. What government had the political will to do it in
the last ten years? There has not been any reform in education to match the
standard of reform that has taken place in the last ten years, and I am proud I
was with the government that initiated that fantastic reform. Education will
never be the same again in this Province.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: You got that right.
MR. LUSH: And I hear the hon. gentleman on the other side from Trinity
North making a derisive remark about it. I heard him make a derisive remark and
laugh derisively. I ask him: Is he prepared to go to his constituency and say
that education has not improved in the past ten years in his area and improved
immensely? I see the Member for Windsor-Springdale shaking his head. Well, I
tell the hon. gentleman I had the honour of teaching in his area and I would
venture to say -
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: On a point of order, Madam Chair.
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I say to the hon. member opposite: No, I will not stand here today and say
there has not been improvements in our education system because I think there
has; there has been some real good improvements.
I would also tell the hon. member that prior to coming into this new
profession I spent a number of years as a school trustee. I was a school trustee
who went through that change that you are talking about, went through that
period from the last 1980s up to the mid-1990s when we had to endure massive
cuts in our operating budgets. We had to endure massive cuts in the number of
teacher allocations. We had to endure massive consultations within our
communities to talk to parents and students about how we were going to cope with
the big reduction in the number of teaching units that we have. I went through
that period, I say to the hon. member.
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
I will ask the hon. member to get to his point of order.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Point, very simply, Madam Chair, is: yes, there have
been some improvements, but during that period in which the member is referring
to there has been a tremendous amount of anguish, tremendous amount of turmoil,
and a tremendous number of cuts being made in the system. So, as he stands and
talks about the change in the system, I ask him to be more accurate in his
comments about what has actually happened in the last ten years, Madam Chair.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: What has happened in the last ten years is that there has been
a massive change in education. The likes of it has never happened in this
Province before and it has all been very positive.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that his time is up.
MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, let me conclude by saying, I am so proud that I
was a part of the reform, and wish that I could be part of such a great social
legislation in some other area of endeavour in this Province as we were in
education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is my pleasure to stand in the House today and debate Interim Supply. We
heard the Premier earlier today twist and malign things that our leader and our
Member for St. John's East have said. Madam Chair, I am going to tell you that
it is this side of the House, our party in 1999, who brought in such policies as
televising the Legislature. That policy was since adopted by government. It is
this side of the House who brought in the policy of a Citizens'
Representative, or Ombudsman as we call it. It is that side of the House that
has adopted this policy as well. It is our side of the House who advocated to
put in place a Youth and Child Advocate for the children and youth of the
Province. It is that side of the House who has adopted that policy as well.
The Chair just changed, so I say to the Chair of the House, it is this side
of the House that has advocated to bring in fixed four-year terms. Our leader
announced a policy that we would have fixed four-year terms; that we would have
electoral reform; that we would put in place measures to control the amount of
lobbying that can take place in the Province, that it would have to be
registered; that the ministers being lobbied would have to register the fact
that they have been lobbied. It is now that side of the House which is adopting
that policy.
The Premier, some two years ago, stood in this House and stated that he will,
to the best of his ability, adopt each and every policy that we bring in and put
it in place and implement it prior to the election. That is what we see
happening in this Province. That is what we see happening. The policies that are
being put forward by this party have been adopted and put in place by
government. What we are seeing in this Province, Mr. Chair, are policies that
are being put forward by our party, robbed by government, put in place by
government. Then they have the nerve to stand in this House and say that we have
no ideas; we have no policy. Where is our policy? Those policies have been
stolen.
Our leader stood in response to the Throne Speech, Mr. Chair, and said,
"I, for one, and my caucus, won't be bound by the political commitments
made by a government in the last days of their electoral term without first
evaluating them through a comprehensive due diligence process." There is
nothing wrong with that, Mr. Chair, but we have this Province's version of
Weird Al Yankovitch on that side of the House twisting and maligning the words
of members of this side of the House so that they are similar but have a
different meaning. That is what is happening right now in this Province.
The Premier and members opposite, Mr. Chair, are nervous. Their electoral
term is winding down. They know that the candle is about to blow out for them.
What is happening in this Province, Mr. Chair, is that they are putting forward
a strategy of twisting and maligning what is being said, a fear monger campaign
throughout this Province. They are putting forward a campaign to try and twist
what is being said and create concern, to hide their own record; to bring
concern to the people of this Province that we are going to do something that
the people of the Province do not want to see. They are trying to put forward
the notion that the people have something to be concerned about. The only thing
that the people of this Province have to be concerned about, Mr. Chair, is
another four years of government by that side of the House.
Mr. Chair, we have, on this side of the House, advocated for a four-year
term. The Prem