KELLY LAMROCK PRESENTATION IN THE BUDGET DEBATE!!!

Picture 049, originally uploaded by Oldmaison.

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 1/25
003 13:05
Daily Sitting 15
Assembly Chamber,
Thursday, March 30, 2006.
(The House met at 1:05 p.m., with Hon. Mr. Malley, the Speaker, in the chair.
Prayers.)
Debate on Motion 28—Budget Debate
Mr. Lamrock, resuming the adjourned debate on Motion 28, spoke as follows: It is certainly an honour to stand here on behalf of the official opposition today and give our reply to the budget that was read in this Chamber some 48 hours ago. I want to thank my party for the opportunity to speak for our caucus about the direction we see this province taking and to give our response to some of what was announced.

Of course, people will know that I am not the speaker who originally adjourned the debate. I want
to begin by, first of all, communicating the best wishes of our caucus and, I am certain, the
government across the way to the member for Moncton North and all of the Murphy family at this
difficult time. Henry Murphy, of course, was a very distinguished public servant for quite some
time, and people will know that the Murphy family is very close. I am sure our thoughts are with
them at this time.
J’aimerais aussi prendre l’occasion pour féliciter le ministre des Finances pour sa présentation claire
et forte du budget l’autre jour, étant donné les circonstances qui, je sais bien, étaient très difficiles.
C’est bien de voir le ministre ici aujourd’hui. J’aimerais dire que, bien qu’il y aura un bon débat sur
le budget, nous voulons le féliciter pour son courage de l’autre jour quand il a déposé le budget. Il
a fait son travail dans des circonstances difficiles. Monsieur le ministre, c’est bien de vous revoir.
004 13:10
I also want to begin by thanking my constituents who gave me the opportunity to stand here. For
three years, I have been proud to represent the riding of Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak. Fredericton is
the city where I grew up, from the age of eight on. It is a city where, of course, I have very deep
roots. My family has been in Fredericton for generations. If you walk down Queen Street, you can
see the old Morrison Insurance building which was my family’s early business. I come from a good
Tory family in Fredericton, actually. My great uncle, Horace Hanson . . . I am not sure if he would
be pleased to see me doing this today, or horrified that I am not on the other side of the Chamber.
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 2/25
I have always loved Fredericton. Even after I had the usual young person’s desire to leave for a
while and seek greener pastures, I returned here to raise a family because it is a city I love, for the
people and their commitment to the city. I love the city and its potential. I am very proud to
represent it, and I am very grateful to my constituents and all the communities in Fredericton-Fort
Nashwaak for the chance to stand here today.
I also want to acknowledge and thank my own family. My wife Karen is a lawyer here in town, and
I am very proud of her career. She has managed, even as her own career takes off, to be supportive
of mine and some of the bizarre and difficult choices I made in running for office and choosing this
profession. I am very grateful to her for her love and support. Also, I want to thank my
kids—Kennedy, who probably right now is off at Alexander Gibson Memorial School, and
Kayleigh, who is at day care.
I think all of us know that there are a lot of sacrifices with all of this. We make them. I do not think
I have to tell anyone in this Chamber how hard it is to be away from our kids at times and not be
cognizant of the small moments we are missing and how fleeting some of those moments can be.
Of course, they make sacrifices too, in ways that they are probably too young to understand. I hope,
too, that we give them benefits. One thing about becoming a parent is, when you have that incredible
experience of holding your first child in your arms, you become aware that, for the first time in your
life, there is something larger than yourself for which you have to sacrifice. There is a reason beyond
what you may want. There is a purpose to your life. That is something that, at the end of the day,
as parents I hope we can communicate to our kids, that they themselves may have that basic idea
that there is something larger than themselves, that willingness to sacrifice for something bigger than
they are.
I hope that, in some small way, all of us, as parents, who give up a great deal to be here, are able
to communicate to our kids that we are here because there are ideas and visions and principles that
drive us. There are communities we want to serve. There are things we want to get done. There are
programs we want to launch. There are people’s lives we want to make better. All of us make
sacrifices as parents because there is also something else larger than us—our community, our
province, and our country that we love and the ideas that we stand for. I hope that, for the time we
sacrifice, we can also teach our children that sometimes those sacrifices are worth making.
I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your new responsibilities and to wish you well. It is not
an easy job. It is one that sometimes people tend to overlook, but it is an important one. We stand
here today in this Chamber, which has stood for over 100 years. The Legislative Assembly and its
debate should never be allowed to become irrelevant. Even if so much seems to happen by
regulation or press conference, even as we have more and more leader-driven politics, we must
always remember that here is where all of us—whether we bear the title of Premier, leader, or
minister—are 55 equals in this Chamber. Because of that, this Legislative Assembly is where new
ideas have been brought forward and old ones challenged.
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 3/25
It is true that, always, society leans toward greater social justice. Over time, when we look back, as
tough as some of the day-to-day battles are, it is worth remembering that, no matter which side we
are on and no matter how fierce the debates get, the people who came before us have somehow
always managed to bend that spectre of time toward greater social justice for more economic
opportunity, for more equality, and for more respect for diversity. We, too, will be able to do that
some day. It happens because this is the place where good new ideas are furthered, where bad old
ideas fall, and where debate is able to weed them out.
I know that you, Mr. Speaker, have a great respect for the principle that every, single voice in this
Chamber matters, and that, ultimately, good ideas are moved forward when every single voice can
be heard. I know you are committed to that principle. You said in your remarks upon taking the
Chair that you may be new to Parliamentary procedure, but that principle will get you a long way.
I know that I speak for all of us when I say that we love this Assembly, we love its traditions, and
we are here to support you in every way possible.
005 13:15
I also want to acknowledge my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber. It is the first chance
I have had to welcome all of those who sit here for the first time as ministers of the Crown. We will
have some fierce debates, I am sure, and there is nothing wrong with that.
I think it is also important to acknowledge that each and every member of this Chamber—and I
mean this sincerely—gets up in the morning wanting to leave New Brunswick a little bit better than
the way he or she found it. If sometimes the debate gets heated, it is because we believe very
strongly in the things we are talking about. It is because this is the format that we have to try to
convince each other that we are right, to try to get those opportunities.
I know that I have worked with all the ministers since I was elected. I wish them all well. I also want
to mention, in particular, the new ministers from Saint John Portland, Oromocto-Gagetown, and
Mactaquac. To varying degrees, we all knew each other in university. We all hoped we might wind
up here. We are probably not surprised that we are on opposite sides of the Chamber. However, the
inclusion of new voices is what moves government forward. I know each and every one of you are
worthy additions to the intellectual and ideological traditions of your party, and you have earned
your spot in those seats. I want to wish you folks all the best, and I look forward to our many
debates.
I also, of course, want to acknowledge the Premier. We are in for a long session. The Premier moved
to Fredericton some seven years ago. I want him to know that he is welcome in this community,
even after his political life, whenever that may be. However, I see him often, at many events. His
wife Diane has participated in a lot of fund-raisers. The first time I met her, we were actually doing
a play together to raise money for Theatre New Brunswick, and I know that she won the respect of
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 4/25
everybody she worked with. She was very new in the community. Often, as I watch her work with
people, I have to admit that I think we are grateful we are running against the Lord we are rather
than Mrs. Lord. I do want the Premier to know that he has taken on a tough job. He has our respect.
I know that his family, Sébastien, Jasmine, and Diane, have also made their sacrifices, and I want
to acknowledge that before beginning today.
I also want to thank my own caucus members for the chance to speak for them. I want to start by
acknowledging the work of my leader, the member for Kent. I stand here today with a very different
Liberal Party than it was a few years ago. That is because, I think, some of the things that have
happened in this party are also the things that have to happen in New Brunswick. That has happened
under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition.
My leader has taken up a party that has, I think, the right principles to lead New Brunswick: a belief
that you should get up every morning and work hard and be grateful for the privilege of working for
the people of New Brunswick, and a respect for innovation and ideas. This leader has created a
culture in this party where new ideas are welcome, where challenging the old way of doing things
is encouraged, and where people are made to get up every day and ask: How can we do this a little
bit better? I think this leader exhibits one of the strongest characteristics of leadership; that is, he is
not afraid to have strong voices around him.
When I look around this caucus, I see people who are not there to repeat the same old tired spin or
to put out the party line. There are people who come from a diversity of backgrounds who are here
to stand up for their constituencies and their principles, like the member for Saint John Lancaster,
who never lets us forget the needs of working class people, people living in poverty in Saint John,
and those living with medical conditions. He stands up for them. The member for Grand Lake has
been so forceful in pushing the needs of his constituents who were affected by floods. He always
reminds us of the needs of senior citizens who are seeking certainty and dignity in their lives and
who are looking to government to act.
C’est bien que les paroles du député de Centre-Péninsule soient les bienvenues dans notre caucus,
quand il parle des besoins des gens de la Péninsule acadienne et du nord du Nouveau-Brunswick
et quand il parle de l’importance d’aider les gens qui reçoivent l’aide au revenu. Il parle des rêves
de ces gens et de faire des investissements pour les gens qui vivent dans la pauvreté. Il a une voix
forte. Il parle parfois sur différents dossiers qu’il est plus facile d’ignorer. Il parle de tout cela et il
est le bienvenu dans ce caucus, parce que c’est notre devoir de parler de ces choses.
There are so many more with whom I am so proud to work. The member for Miramichi Bay speaks
up so often for the interests of kids, so often strongly and forcefully, for us to remember the 52%
of the population who are women and their needs, which we must never forget—affordable,
accessible child care spaces. She has been a strong voice, and I am proud to serve with her.
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 5/25
006 13:20
The member for Miramichi Centre never lets us forget the needs of the mills, the workers, and the
people of the Miramichi. He keeps fighting for new industries like universities and postsecondary
education. That is what a good constituency member does.
Le député de Bathurst parle des besoins des enfants dans sa circonscription, et le député de
Campbellton n’a jamais oublié les besoins des enfants dans le système d’éducation. Nous avons un
caucus diversifié avec un grand nombre des voix individuelles et un grand nombre de voix fortes.
Les voix sont les bienvenues et elles sont entendues, parce qu’on travaille avec un chef qui est un
vrai leader, et je parle du chef de l’opposition.
There will be many voices raised on both sides. Often people stop me on the streets, and they say:
Why are you folks always fighting in the Legislature? Can you not just stop fighting and do what
must be done? Certainly, there is much to be done, but I make no apologies for the fact that there
will be heated disagreements, nor should the members on the other side. People of principle, people
of ideas, people with vision, who believe passionately that what they are doing is right, have to have
disagreements. They have disagreements because there are disagreements in society about the right
way forward. Only by discussing and airing our views, by challenging each other, by pushing each
other, and by giving the voters a choice between competing visions—only then—can good ideas
move forward.
We will have, I am sure, a heated debate. Disagreement is not to be feared. Only dull agreement is
to be feared in a democracy. What we will hold ourselves to, I hope—so that we can conduct this
in a manner which is civil—is that we can attack each other’s ideas but not the people behind them,
since all of us are public servants who care a great deal about our province, and that we can hold
ourselves to the test of always trying to put forward new ideas: When we criticize, we propose an
alternative. When we attack, we make clear our principles and also have statements that further
debate.
Pierre Trudeau once said that the best politician is a teacher. I would not arrogate myself to
necessarily believe I have information that must be bestowed on others, but I think that what Mr.
Trudeau meant at that time is that all of us are shepherds of our public debate. We should do things
that do not confuse issues for the purpose of partisanship. We should always try to increase the
people’s understanding, give the people information, trust them with the difficult choices and the
real issues and the real challenges that confront us, and count on them to make the right decision.
To that kind of higher level of debate, I will try to commit myself today.
That does bring me to the budget because I want to start a debate on what this budget actually does
and the ideas that are really contained in it. We have heard the spin, but it is very important that we
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 6/25
understand what is the real choice before this Assembly in deciding whether or not to accept this
budget.
I think it is important to note that it is our job, as an opposition, to point out when statements
perhaps are made to hide the truth or to blunt the challenges or to keep the public from weighing in
on judgment.
Page 20 of the budget had one statement that still just befuddles me, and this, I think, is emblematic
of why, after all the good-news announcements, members of the public still seem very skeptical that
their lives are actually going to get better as a result of this document. On page 20, the government
states that it will limit the increases at NB Power to 8%, as opposed to the 11.4% proposed. Then
it says that by increasing power rates by only 8%, the government will save New Brunswickers $46
million. By taking more money from them, the government will save them money. Why? Because
the government was going to take even more.
Imagine going into a business where, every day, somebody says: You should come into my business
and buy this. You will save $20. You would say: Well, it is $50 more than it was. He would say:
Yes, but I was going to raise it by $70, so it is a bargain.
Apparently, the best way to put $46 million back into the New Brunswick economy is to increase
something by 8% but say you were going to increase it by 11%. This is the government’s new
prosperity plan. Next year, government members will probably say: We are going to hike it by 20%,
but we are going to propose 100%. Then you will save millions more. Maybe NB Power should
propose a 3000% rate increase and merely double the rates, because by their math, we could all
retire and move to Florida. That might actually be the new economic development plan.
007 13:25
We deserve better than that spin. This is a rate hike of 8% that could have been avoided, because
this government dithered and dawdled and delayed. It mismanaged. It failed to get a contract signed.
It failed to pay attention to what people were doing. It failed to meet its due diligence as a
shareholder, and now it is passing the tab to New Brunswickers. For all this, the government
members say they are proud.
Ils disent qu’ils sont fiers d’avoir augmenté de 8 % les tarifs d’électricité. Ils sont fiers de cela.
Quelle honte, quand il y a des gens qui doivent travailler de plus en plus à des salaires de plus en
plus bas, quand il y a des gens qui reçoivent l’aide au revenu et qui ont vraiment peur de l’avenir,
et quand le gouvernement continue de couper l’électricité en hiver aux gens du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Je dis non à la fierté d’une augmentation. La vraie fierté, c’est d’améliorer notre Politique
énergétique pour aider les familles et pour s’assurer que les tarifs d’électricité sont abordables pour
tout le monde au Nouveau-Brunswick. Voilà la vraie fierté.
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 7/25
No one should ever be proud of an 8% power hike. No one should ever be thrilled, and no one
should expect the people of New Brunswick to do it. The government may have failed, but we can,
and will, do better.
When we read this budget, it is very clear that we have a budget that mentions everything but solves
nothing. Throughout the budget, there are tiny announcements, and the government uses amounts
that sound very big. There is $4 million here and $5 million there. It is the same tactic that has
always been used. Every budget puts a little tiny bit of money . . . I once said it is like putting a
scrawny, malnourished chicken in every pot because they spend just enough to mention everything
but not enough ever to do anything.
If this were how people ran their household budgets, I can just see how it would work. Okay, family,
to show our commitment to proper clothing in winter for children, our government is doing more
than ever before. This year, every child will receive one additional sock. But that is not all. We will
also make sure we are committed to renovating the home, which is why we have invested in three
more thumbtacks than any other government in history, to hang three more posters. This government
understands the importance of family vacations, which is why, once a year, everybody is getting a
bus ticket to Oromocto. It is a beautiful place, but it may not be a great rest for someone from
Fredericton.
The trouble is, you can mention everything, but the real test is this: What did you do? Did you make
transformative change in any area? Have you really brought about something that makes people’s
lives better? There are citizens who are looking to us for action. Beyond all the millions and the
dollar signs and the decimal points, what is the real test? The real test is whether it will change
people’s lives.
Will those mill workers in Nackawic or Miramichi or Bathurst, who are facing a mortgage and kids
and maybe not being able to sell their homes, who are facing uncertainty in that mill, find certainty
in this budget? Will the senior citizens, with one ailing spouse, wondering if they can afford nursing
home care and afford their own lifestyle, find the security that they look to us to present? Will those
parents, hoping for a better future for their children, who have worked hard in hourly wage jobs to
afford university educations, find something in this budget that puts them any closer? Will the single
parents on social assistance find in this budget renewed faith and hope to keep them from giving up?
Will they find it at the sign of a government that believes that, with a little investment, they can
improve their lives and make their kids’ lives better? Will the parents of that special needs child, the
autistic child, watching the window of opportunity close because treatment is cut off at five years,
find renewed hope and belief that their child is going to have the same future as every other child?
Will the small business person with an idea and a dream find greater markets in this budget? Will
the researcher with an idea, looking for investors to share that dream and potential to attract new
energy and investment to New Brunswick, find new partners out there and new markets as a result
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 8/25
of this budget? Will the veterans in a small community, watching their school close and hoping that
the place that they have called home can thrive for another generation, find renewed hope?
008 13:30
Will there be parents who will be more certain of a brighter future for their children? Will there be
people who are more certain of security and health for their parents? Will children, who look to us
to make decisions for the long term, not just the next election cycle, not just the next fiscal year,
children who are counting on us to put in place long-term equal opportunity for all children, find in
this budget something that will benefit them 20 years from now?
It is not how many things you announce. It is how many lives you improve. That is the task to which
we should hold ourselves. These citizens do not seek utopia, and they do not seek perfection, but
they do demand effort and attention. They demand that we face the problems honestly, with real
discussion, not with spin. They demand that we tell them exactly the effect that our budgets will
have upon their lives. Most important, the people I have described are citizens. They are not merely
taxpayers, and they are not merely voters. None of us are defined simply by the income taxes we
pay, but we are defined by the dreams we hold for ourselves and for those we love. We are defined
by the people around us who make a community. We are defined by our culture and our language.
We are defined by what we do to reach out to each other. Most of all, we are defined as a
province—not by the taxes we pay, not merely as consumers, and not as voters to be polled. We are
defined by what we can do together. That is the real test of this budget, pooling the energy of what
all of us can do together. Is this the best we can do? That is the test to which we hold this budget.
When I look at it, I am not sure. In this budget, we have seen the four classic Conservative
approaches to avoiding action: the study, the spin, the fund, and the symbol. Let me explain. This
government loves to study and study and study. It is a government that moves at the speed of
study—not at the pace of change, but at the speed of study. When there were forestry companies
crying out years ago for certainty so that they could invest in their mills and make a real future in
communities like Nackawic, Bathurst, and Miramichi, what did this government do? It studied.
Then, it studied the study, even though it was referring the exact same questions.
Regarding our community colleges, we have known for years that 2 000 young New Brunswickers
a year are turned away, not because they do not have the qualifications, not because they do not have
a future here in New Brunswick, but because we did not spend enough to create a space for them
in our community colleges. What is the result in this budget? Five fiscal years after this government
said that we needed to create 2 000 more spaces per year to meet the Prosperity Plan targets, how
much is invested here in more spaces? How many were announced? Zero. Nothing but a study.
We have seen it time and time again. The DMR study of nursing homes talks about how the dignity
for senior citizens could be achieved by addressing hours of care, the dignity that comes from even
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 9/25
very simple things that some of us who are still able-bodied take for granted, the dignity that comes
from avoiding incontinence, the dignity of human contact to make us feel alive—the basic, dignified
human contacts that give senior citizens hope and the dignity they have owned throughout their
lives. The government members had a study telling them how to do it. What are they doing? They
are studying the study. The time for study is over. It is time for a government that will act.
Le temps d’étudier est terminé, c’est le temps d’agir quand vous connaissez les réponses. Vous ne
pouvez pas les mettre dans le budget quand il n’y a pas assez d’argent pour agir mais simplement
pour plus d’études. Voilà un gouvernement en panne d’idées. Je crois bien que c’est un
gouvernement en panne de temps.
Then we see the spin. If you cannot do something, at least you can announce it. After all, we had the
Prime Minister here. They shook hands, and everybody made a speech. I went to that announcement.
I felt like the only cranberry in a blueberry patch that day. There was fawning applause. The
Conservatives were all beaming, but, once again, they were too easily impressed. Do we have an
announcement? Yes. Do we have a deal? Yes. Do we have the money? Yes. Do we have a road?
Wait a minute. No, we do not.
009 13:35
What is the excuse now? The Premier used to say: The federal government made me do it. I cannot
possibly move. The federal government sapped my will to live. I cannot possibly build a road; the
federal government is in the way.
The federal government came, and the Premier said: This is great. I admit, he got less over 10 years
than he used to get. He somehow agreed to take all this money over 10 years. He is like a lawyer
who signs a release and does not get enough money for his client. However, he said it was enough.
What is the excuse for not building the road?
We have seen it before with health care deal after health care deal. We hear that the Premier is in
Ottawa and he has made the deal happen. Do wait times get shorter? No. Are there more spaces in
hospital beds? No. Are there more opportunities for home care? No. But there is a deal. There is a
deal for health care. It is just that nobody is actually getting more health care.
There is a deal for Saint John Harbour. Do we see the Saint John Harbour cleanup in this budget?
No. This budget ought to come with a warning sticker: Caution. Objects in the Premier’s speech may
be farther away than they appear.
Then we see the fund. The fund is a fantastic way to talk about all kinds of issues while never
actually being in danger of doing anything about any of them. We have funds for everything. Do you
remember the Prosperity Plan? The government does not talk about this as much any more, but it
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 10/25
was going to close the gap and be in the top three for research and development. The gap grew.
Why? Because we have a fund. We have the New Brunswick innovation fund, into which, every
year, the government puts in $5 million, and less than half of it ever comes out. The problem with
innovation is not with the people out there applying to the fund. The problem is that the government
that is running the fund would not know innovation if it ran over it.
We have funds for everything. Does money come out? No. We have a northern development fund.
Do you know how much this fund spent in research and development on the kinds of things that
create sustainable jobs, that build on the actual natural resources that are there? That is how we build
opportunity. It is not in using it as a slush fund with which we fund the odd thing to create temporary
jobs. That is not how we create opportunity.
Si on veut avoir des possibilités dans le Nord, dans le Nouveau-Brunswick rural, il est important de
faire des investissements dans la recherche et le développement pour créer des emplois qui
utiliseront nos ressources naturelles dans les produits finis. Le temps où nous pouvions simplement
utiliser les ressources au début parce que d’autres endroits pouvaient terminer le produit pour moins
cher est terminé. C’est seulement dans la recherche et le développement qu’on peut créer les emplois
permanents dans le Nord, dans le Nouveau-Brunswick rural. Dans le fonds pour le Nord, combien
de dépenses ont été faites dans la recherche et le développement? Zéro. Dans le fonds pour la
Miramichi? Zéro. Dans le fonds pour le Restigouche? Zéro. Est-ce qu’on a espoir que le
gouvernement peut créer des emplois dans le Nord? Non.
We have a child care deal but no spaces. Look at all the funds we have. We have a fund for harbour
cleanup, but the harbour is not clean. There are funds for environmental trust, but nothing is ever
spent on the environment. We have an early learning trust fund, but prekindergarten is delayed. We
have a wellness fund. What does that do? We do not know, but it comes out of the Total
Development Fund. What came out of the Total Development Fund? Nothing at all. We have
announcements of funds. What we do not have is announcements of action. It is time for that to
change.
Finally, we see the symbol, the symbolic expenditure. We saw that the other day with the Minister
of Education. Good news: We are finally getting serious about special education. We are spending
$5 million more. I admit that, to the average person, that sounds like a lot. It is significantly more
than I have in my bank account at any given time, by about $4.999 million. I understand why they
want to put it in there, until you remember something. For the last two years, every single school
district has spent more on special education than this government was giving them. They have had
to cut libraries, they have had to cut extracurricular activities, and they have had to cut school bus
routes—all because they were underfunded on special education. In how many districts did the
government get it right? How many districts got enough for special education in the last two years?
None. Zero. How many could the minister tell us are going to get even as much this year as they
spent last year? Zero. You see, the problem is that we are millions of dollars in the hole.
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 11/25
010 13:40
We know the C.D. Howe Institute points out that we are one of only two provinces to cut education
in real dollars. We know full well that we are near the bottom of the pack. Why? Because the
McKay Report tells us.
On per capita funding, we would have to work harder just to get to the middle, just to be mediocre.
Does the minister go and demand better? No, he does not. Here is the problem with that. It is
absolutely important that we do more than say that we have a symbolic $5 million. It is not whether
you spend a little bit more. Inflation does that. Did you create change? Did the children with
learning disabilities get help? Will they get help now? Will the children with behavioural problems
that were put off until middle school have those problems addressed in Grade 1 now? Will the child
who is struggling to read and to learn get help reading and learning? Those are the questions.
It is not whether inflation can drive you and put a few more bucks in the budget so you can cut a
ribbon or make an announcement. How many kids are you really going to help? This government
is underbudgeting in education. It put the school districts millions of dollars in the hole just to keep
up on actual needs. If you think $5 million will fix it, you must think you can start a 747 with a
flashlight battery.
There is $4 million to deal with wait lists. What does the money do? It monitors how many people
are on the wait list. Are there any more doctors? No. Are the wait lists going to be shorter? No. Are
there any more surgical beds? No. But, make no mistake, we will be counting how many people are
waiting. We are on that. That is a symbolic expenditure. Mention everything—solve nothing.
There is $1 million more for adult literacy in a province with a 46% illiteracy rate. I do not know
what we are going to do with the $4 per person who needs training, but it strikes me as a symbolic
expenditure. The fact is, we need far more than that. Our problems with literacy: the people who are
sitting on the sidelines of the economy, the people who are giving up hope and opportunity. They
need more than $4 a person. They need somebody with real commitment to take ahold of this file.
However, once again, they mentioned everything and they solve nothing.
There we have the four techniques of the budget. How to talk about everything while doing nothing.
Ce gouvernement a recours à quatre techniques et l’une d’entre elles est de mentionner tous les
problèmes mais de ne trouver aucune solution. Ce gouvernement va dépenser juste assez, juste
assez, pour mentionner le problème, mais il ne veut pas trouver une solution.
The study, the spin, the fund, and the symbol. Once again, this government is a snooze-alarm
government. It is as though it wakes up in the morning, the alarm goes off, and it is the newscaster:
Today, there are more mills closing in New Brunswick. Forest executives say that they need certain
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 12/25
investments to start investing in our mills and protecting jobs. Whack! This government hits the
snooze alarm—commission a study. The alarm goes off again. Teachers are saying they are having
problems making sure that kids with learning disabilities get the help they need in time. Principals
are crying out for help to make sure that our children have their problems dealt with now, rather than
later, when it costs more. Whack. They hit the snooze alarm. The alarm goes off nine minutes later.
Another accident on the road today. We are hoping that the announcement will finally lead to
somebody actually building a road. Whack. They hit the snooze alarm. We have people waiting for
universities. Whack. We have people waiting for community colleges. Whack. There are people
waiting to get their kids into programs that can help with their wellness and physical fitness. Whack.
It is time to stop hitting the snooze alarm. It is time to put this government to sleep.
These are the facts, by the way, and they should tell you that you have a budget where the devil is
in the details. The Minister of Finance says this is his best budget. With all due respect, that is like
saying we are the best ice hockey team in Ecuador. They said that this was the taxes-down,
spending-up budget. That is what they said: taxes down, spending up. Really. Spending is up 1.7%
if you look at this budget. That is how much more.
011 13:45
If you want to know how little is actually behind this light sprinkling of good-news announcements,
it is just enough to cover the province with announcements and cover the government’s butt with
the appearance of action. Spending is up by 1.7%. In their own budget documents, inflation is 2.5%.
For all these people planning our nursing homes, hospitals, and schools, by the time they pay the
wages, the bills, and the gas prices, they are further behind than they were. Spending is down.
The government says that taxes are down, except that it is expecting $45 million more in income
tax revenue in this year alone. It is taxes up, spending down. In fact, if you want to talk about
spending, the government even says that the Premier is committed to cutting taxes by 5%. To put
us on our way, we have eliminated the bracket creep, which the government put back in in the first
place. Bracket creep means that when inflation goes up, you get pushed to the higher brackets. It
affects working-class New Brunswickers. Government is saying that counts toward the reduction.
Guess what? Actually, to reduce your taxes, we are not going to increase them. That must go along
with the get-rich scheme on the power bill. By increasing it less, you are getting more. That is what
this government thinks is progress.
We have a surplus of $22.2 million, except that there is a cut of around $100 million in university
funding, but it is not really there. Government took it out of last year. It is the backdoor rainy day
fund.
What we have is a budget where, in actual fact, spending is down after inflation and taxes are up,
if you measure according to how much money is coming out of our pockets and going into the
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 13/25
government’s coffers. We are giving government more. It is spending less, and the budget, once
again—once the real accountants look at it—is not balanced.
Meanwhile, we have challenges that need to be addressed, not with symbolism or funds but with real
action. The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council says that New Brunswick’s employment growth
has mostly seen the loss of full-time jobs being replaced by part-time work in the service sector. Do
not take my word for it, check the budget documents, which show that our wages are not going up
as quickly as the national average. This government keeps saying it has created new jobs. I hear a
lot of people saying that they are working two of them and they are just not getting ahead.
We have missed our targets in the Prosperity Plan—the ones that count, the ones that close our wage
gap with the rest of the country. We are further behind than when we started. Have we closed the
gap with the rest of the country in research and development? No, we are further behind than when
we started.
Now comes the Five in Five Initiative. The Premier says: Oh, trust me. I have not done anything yet,
but by 2011, this place will look great. Good news.
Voici les bonnes nouvelles : Le premier ministre a dit : J’ai de bonnes idées, je veux réduire la
pauvreté, améliorer l’environnement et investir plus dans l’éducation des Néo-Brunswickois. Ce
sont de bonnes nouvelles, je le vois comme cela. Ce sont là ses bonnes nouvelles? Alors, qu’avezvous
fait pendant les sept dernières années?
What did he think he was supposed to be doing about poverty—increase it? Did he think we needed
fewer people? Is this really a brainstorm that should cause one to yell: Eureka, I have got it? Poverty
bad, environment good? That is the trouble with this government. It wants bonus points just for
figuring it out. A goal without a plan is just a wish. A goal without real spending commitments today
is just spin. As the Minister of Education said, if it is spin, call it spin.
The motion before the House today is to approve the general budgetary direction of the government,
and I want to take a moment to make what that means clear.
On veut donner notre appui à la direction générale du budget du gouvernement. Ce n’est pas un vote
sur chaque dépense dans le budget, c’est un vote sur la direction, c’est une question de confiance
dans le gouvernement. Traditionnellement, on faisait cela. Avant de donner la permission au Cabinet
de dépenser l’argent, il est important de s’assurer que l’Assemblée législative a confiance que ce
Conseil exécutif, ce Cabinet, ce premier ministre, peut vraiment faire les choses qu’il dit vouloir
faire dans le budget.
That is what we are really debating here. It is not over each individual expenditure. I know that we
will hear the government do that. If you vote against the government, you are against every single
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 14/25
expenditure in the budget. We know that is illogical. After all, budgets contain expenditures for
every hospital and school. If that logic were accurate, then some of the members who are in the
opposition . . . If the member for Tracadie-Sheila had voted against a Liberal budget, he would have
been against every single hospital, every single school, and every single road. Obviously, he was
not. I am sure that the member for Grand Bay-Westfield was not opposed to every single dollar in
those budgets against which he voted. He was voting on a legitimate point of disagreement. Do you
think that these guys should be trusted with your money? Do you have confidence in the direction
in which we are going? That is the real issue before the House.
012 13:50
That comes down to a question of trust. Can we trust the government? Can we trust a government
that passed the Child and Youth Advocate Act and never appointed a Child and Youth Advocate?
Can we trust a government that passed the Public Trustee Act and has no public trustee? Can we
trust a government that appointed the democracy commission and said it would report back and still
has not eight months later? Can we trust a government that says that it has 240 more teachers but
does not tell you about the hundreds more it cut so that we have 800 fewer today? Can we trust a
government that has missed all the targets of its Prosperity Plan? Can we trust a government that has
failed to deliver on wage growth for New Brunswickers? Can we trust a government that creates
funds and does not spend them? Can we trust this snooze-alarm, mention-everything, do-nothing
government for one more year while we lose pace? I say—we say—the answer is no.
To say that, I want to make the standard to which we are holding the government perfectly clear.
What is the standard by which an opposition should judge a government? The government has put
forward two suggestions for itself. It says that, first, you should judge it fondly, because it is
spending more in constant dollars than it did when it came in. It is spending more; therefore, it must
be doing something. There is one word that can describe that phenomenon, which may be new to
them, and it is called inflation. In actual fact, you could be almost any political party and you would
spend more seven years later than you did the day you came in. In fact, you could put almost any
higher primate around the Cabinet table, and you would spend more than the day you came in. In
fact, I think that, if you checked, any government that lasted seven years . . . Find me one in Canada
that is not spending more than it did the day it came in. The Mike Harris government, the Prince of
Darkness who should slay government spending with a single blow, was spending millions more
when he left office compared to the day he came in. Why? With inflation, you always spend more.
It is not hard. You just have to sit there, and sitting there is not getting it done. That is not the
criterion.
Then they say: Compare us to past governments. It would be a fun parlour game. I would love to.
It would be an interesting academic exercise, but that is not the challenge. Indeed, I would hope that
if we are ever privileged enough to be on that side, we would hold ourselves up to the challenges
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 15/25
that we really have, not to the government we replaced, because we want to do better than the
government we replaced. That is why we won.
Every government has its own unique challenges. Louis Robichaud certainly had to focus on
economic equality. Were his numbers on economic growth as robust? Actually, they were. He
inherited a government which, because of years of neglect of rural and northern New Brunswick . . .
There were places that lacked the industrial base, the educational base, the schools, the hospitals,
and the infrastructure. He knew that if we were ever going to get those places even to begin to talk
about economic growth, we had to bring them up to a basic level of equal opportunity. We had to
fight for social justice, so we focused on social justice, and that was his legacy.
Richard Hatfield did a number of things. He restored social peace by ending the fight over Equal
Opportunity, having the courage to accept what was good from what came before. Also, he fought
very hard and diligently to diversify the economy. Richard Hatfield left a $500-million deficit year
over year when he left, but do you know what? Every other government at the time did. That was
the prevailing economic theory. It would have been very hard, almost impossible, for him to have
bucked that trend if he had wanted to. We have to judge him in the era in which he governed, just
as his citizens did.
Frank McKenna inherited a time when governments had to spend a whole lot and when they were
reducing transfer payments. Do you ever know when you are listening to a partisan analysis? I
always like this when I hear it from the government. They will say: You cannot blame us. The
federal government cut transfer payments in 1995, so it is not our fault. Frank McKenna—it was his
fault. Was he not in office when they cut the transfer payments? Yes, but we should get the break
on that.
You see, that is why you cannot buy these partisan arguments. McKenna came down and had to
make New Brunswick more competitive. We were bleeding jobs and red ink. He focused on a few
key areas: knowledge, investment, infrastructure, and technology. Yes, there were areas that they
were not able to deal with. We know that. All these governments, just as this one will have, had
good and bad. They had areas where they had to make priorities.
Sometimes we, as politicians, are very arrogant. We like to think that if we can win one election,
the voters have chosen one of our parties and have said that we are always good and the other party
is always bad. That is a politician’s fondest dream. Do you know what? It is arrogant of us to think
that. Voters are never going to say that one of us is inherently better than the other, because no party
ever really has all of the solutions. There are good or bad governments at the time.
013 13:55
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 16/25
The real question is when a government, with all the challenges it faces, comes to that magic
moment when the voters say: They have been in power long enough. It is time for somebody new.
They are spent. They are tired. They have done what they came to do, and it is time for new voices.
When I look at this budget, we have a government that cannot even meet its own priority areas, a
government that cannot deliver change, a government that has been given $1.6 billion more in
revenue and has not delivered a single bit of transformative change, a government that throws out
master plans one month and discards them the next. That moment of change is upon us now, and we
are ready.
The test is not whether you spend more. You are going to anyway. The test is not whether you can
compare yourself with what came before, because this is a new time, with new challenges. Live in
the now. However, I would suggest this challenge. This is a test of whether a government deserves
our confidence—two simple questions. Has it made the most of its opportunities, and is it up to our
challenges? That is the test for this government.
Une chose est simple avec le présent gouvernement : au cours des sept dernières années, ce
gouvernement a reçu 1,6 milliard de dollars en recettes. Ce gouvernement a reçu plus d’argent que
tout autre gouvernement et, en plus, il existe une bonne économe mondiale et nationale. Ce
gouvernement a profité de la générosité du gouvernement fédéral et il avait la chance de faire de
grandes choses. Est-ce que ce gouvernement a vraiment changé quelque chose? Y a-t-il vraiment
quelque chose qui est mieux aujourd’hui au Nouveau-Brunswick? Moi, je dis non.
Has health care been transformed to a system that helps us get help quicker? No. Are we getting
more kids the help they need in our education system? No. Is university education more affordable?
We are second-last in the country according to the new EPI study. No. Are there more spaces in
community colleges? No. Are we making any progress on the demographic challenge? No. We are
losing ground.
They have squandered every opportunity. They are not up to the challenge. It is time for somebody
to take the next opportunity and deliver.
I want to talk a little bit about that culture of ideas and innovation that this leader has brought to the
Liberal Party—that desire to have new ideas and new ways of doing things, not just to accept that
status quo.
I want to be clear. We are not voting nonconfidence in this government just for what it has done. We
are voting nonconfidence for what it has failed to do. We are voting nonconfidence for the
imagination it has lacked, for the opportunities that it has let pass by, for all the times it hit the
snooze bar, for all the times opportunity knocked and the government did not answer the door.
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 17/25
There is one quote from Robert F. Kennedy that I have always loved. He said that some people look
at what is and ask why while others look at what could be and ask why not. More simply, as one
writer put it, there are always two parts to life: what is and what should be. With a little hard work,
imagination, and creativity, sometimes the two become the same. Hard work, imagination, and
creativity are the values that this leader has told us he expects from those who serve. They are what
New Brunswickers expect from their government. He showed that last time by putting forward a
throne speech amendment that this government turned down—not with pie-in-the-sky goals that will
never be accomplished but with tangible steps we should be taking now to meet the real goal of
making people’s lives better.
We are not voting this government out because of what is in this budget, but because of what is not.
They talk about five in five, but they are zero for seven.
Cette fois nous n’avons aucune confiance dans ce gouvernement, parce qu’il n’a pas accepté
certaines idées.
We are not voting them out because they are bad guys. We are voting them out because they are in
the way of progress. They are in the way of the New Brunswick we could have. They are in the way
of the ideas that should be coming forward. They are in the way of the solutions we should be
pushing. Like a slower driver on the road, it is time for them to pull over and let faster traffic
through.
014 14:00
I want to talk about that New Brunswick we could have. In health care, it is not about making a few
sprinkled spending announcements or new agreements with the federal government that do not go
anywhere. We will target things. We will target things that will give New Brunswickers certainty
and give senior citizens dignity. This government has one of the longest wait times in Canada. It
likes to measure the wait from the time your specialist gets you into surgery, but if you take it from
the time your family doctor tries to get you into surgery, our wait times are among the longest.
We will focus like a laser beam on wait times. We will do the things that this government has not
done to recruit specialists. We will offer locum pay. We will make sure that we are focusing like a
laser beam on the problem of wait lists, and unlike this government, we will be accountable for the
real results. That is what this government should be doing.
We will not repeat tired numbers of spin of more doctors, but we want to make sure doctors are
everywhere, with equal opportunity for the north and equal opportunity for rural New Brunswick.
That is why we will make sure there is continuing medical education, even in the rural areas. That
is why we will make sure there are locums and others to give those rural doctors a week off. We will
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 18/25
do the things that younger doctors are telling us, and we will make sure that there are spaces in New
Brunswick medical school for them. We will bring those doctors home.
We will create an electronic patient record, something that this government has walked away from
too often. We will export that technology and sell it to other jurisdictions. We will work with private
sector partners to do it. We will make sure there is an electronic patient record so a person can move
from one health service to another easily and quickly and receive the right care at the right time.
That is not a question of money; it is a question of innovation and imagination. We have it; they do
not.
No longer will we see small communities ravaged by the problems of prescription drug abuse, but
we will have prescription drug monitoring. We will make sure that MLAs who have fought that
issue so passionately, like the member for Southwest Miramichi, can go home and say that we have
heard those communities and we will have prescription drug monitoring.
Any budget we support on seniors’ care has to do more than sprinkle money around. You have a
report that says to increase the hours of care. It is time to do it. What is the value? Let’s take it from
the people on the front lines in the nursing homes. What difference would an hour make, that one
hour a day that the government’s own report said it should have created in this budget? What if staff
could provide better skin care, just to help to care for infections? Would we not save money in the
long run by making that investment today? Could staff not help to give people a little bit of dignity
by providing incontinence management programs? What about even just having that human contact,
helping senior citizens walk a little more each day and exercise to prolong their lives? Give residents
more than one bath a week. These are the things that we all want to know are there for our parents
and grandparents. If the government does not increase hours of care, this budget does not deserve
support, because we would do that.
Most importantly, we would make real, meaningful investments back in home care. It is time for us
to spend the money necessary to give caregivers and family members the help they need to keep
aging parents and grandparents and spouses in their homes. This government has created some
bogeyman that never existed about people selling their homes. It is not enough just to keep their
homes. We want to keep people in their homes longer. That is where real dignity is. If that is not in
this budget, it does not deserve support, but we would do that.
It is time in education for a new charter of equal opportunity. I had a mentor who recently passed
away. His name was Chip Anderson. I worked with him in student services. He developed a program
called StrengthsQuest, which is for student advising. It was his belief that each and every individual
is blessed with certain strengths. “Educate” is Latin. It means “to take out”, not to put in. The goal
of an educator, the goal of any adult in a child’s life, should be to pull those strengths out, to give
children every opportunity to find what they could be good at, what they could be passionate about,
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 19/25
and to find it. It is not to say you spent $5 million, so leave you alone, but to reach in and find the
potential within every single child. That is what we are going to do.
The time for study is over. We accept the deadlines in the MacKay report. We know full well that
helping a kid learn and not give up hope today is cheaper in the long run. We will meet those
deadlines. We will accept this report. Any budget that does not, does not deserve our support.
We have seen too many small communities feel as though their heart was ripped out by watching
their rural schools close because of a formula that punishes older schools or smaller schools. The
member for Miramichi Bay has introduced legislation in this Chamber to protect rural schools, and
we will go further.
015 14:05
We will find ways to make sure the community can use that facility to keep those small communities
alive. We will celebrate the accomplishments of small schools for elementary schoolkids. We will
make sure that we use the community school model, where the whole community can help to create
a centre where children can find extra learning opportunities and where there are facilities for
exercise after school. We will make sure we treasure small schools, and we will not support any
budget that does not, because we will.
We will not let another 2 000 young New Brunswickers get turned out of community college. We
will invest in the spaces in those community colleges. Government has been studying it for two
years. It has been studying it for five years since the study said: Get more kids in the doors of
community colleges. The time for study is over. If there are not more spaces, we are not supporting
this budget, because we will do it.
The time for more study and missed deadlines on vocational education is over. There are too many
young people who are not getting the opportunity to do something they are passionate about. They
are not able to have that satisfaction that every child should, from having something they can do a
little bit better than the others, from giving in to their talents and being able to use them. Too many
kids, because they are denied that learning opportunity now, are falling through the cracks because
they give up hope. We will not wait and study vocational education or art education or music
education. School is a time to celebrate the diverse gifts and passions of our kids. If you will not do
it, we are not supporting the budget, because we will.
We will not allow our universities to fall behind global competition.
Nous ne sommes pas prêts à avoir des universités qui perdent des étudiants et des professeurs parce
que les autres pays, les autres États et les autres provinces améliorent leurs campus. Nous prévoyons
mettre en place un fonds de 2 millions de dollars pour les infrastructures universitaires. Nous
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 20/25
voulons aider nos étudiants et attirer les meilleurs professeurs. Si le gouvernement n’est pas prêt à
agir, nous ne pouvons pas appuyer le budget parce que nous agirons.
Nous ne sommes pas prêts à accepter un rapport qui dit que nous sommes la deuxième pire province
dans tout le Canada quand vient le temps d’avoir accès à une éducation postsecondaire abordable.
Si le gouvernement n’est pas prêt à renverser la situation qui fait qu’il y a moins d’étudiants
provenant des familles pauvres dans nos universités et, s’il ne pose pas d’actions avec le budget,
nous n’appuierons pas le budget, car nous agirons.
It is time to end the provincial disgrace of a 46% illiteracy rate. I have had the opportunity to meet
with so many people who talk about the small joys that learning to read has added to their lives. You
have no idea how much it means to a parent simply to be able to read to his or her kids. When a
parent has learned to read . . . I was recently at the Literacy Awards of the Literacy Council of New
Brunswick, and there were parents who spoke of what it meant to them finally to open that book and
see meaningful words that they could share with their children and enjoy that bond of telling a story
to their child, to say nothing of going to work and no longer being afraid that they would be teased
about being dumb or stupid, of being ashamed, or of trying to hide their illiteracy from people.
There is so much more we could do. We have seen the private sector say it is willing to help.
Scotiabank recently issued a report that said that literacy is the number one economic issue for
Atlantic Canada. We have business leaders in New Brunswick talking about the need to address
illiteracy. They are right. Right now, it is amazing. We are not even keeping wait lists of who is
waiting for training. Too often, people cannot get help getting literacy training until they are already
unemployed. Too late. Too late.
In fact, the government issued a literacy report. It said: We are taking action on illiteracy. What are
we going to do? First, we are going to review all of our current programs. After seven years, that is
the first thing we are going to do—review what we are doing already? It is time for real action. We
could have real partnerships with the private sector. We could make sure that employers find those
workers who might have gotten that first job out of high school and never had to learn to read, but
who, with a little encouragement, support, and resources, would learn to read. It is an insurance
policy against unemployment.
I am sure that the member for Saint John Lancaster would tell you that there are labour unions which
have been talking about this issue for a long time. They want their members to have the opportunity
to go on to greater jobs. They want their members to have that insurance policy against
unemployment or factories closing. We have the private sector saying it is willing to do it. We have
labour unions and community groups, like Laubach Literacy, which have seen their funding cut and
frozen time and time again. We could have ways to inspire and encourage volunteers and young
people to go out into communities and help people read in their workplace. It is not just about more
money. It is also about more imagination and innovation.
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 21/25
016 14:10
We must never accept—and we cannot accept—a province where 46% of the eligible workforce is
sitting on the sidelines before it even gets into the game. The time to act is now. If this government
does not have the imagination or will to do it, we will not support the budget, because we do.
The time has come to invest in real jobs, not in slush funds and not in funds that nobody ever sees.
We need to find those communities that have natural resources and spend on research and
development. We need to find those entrepreneurs who want to make new value-added products.
We need to make sure that we do not lose those jobs to low-wage jurisdictions like Brazil or China,
but make sure that we make the products right here. We need to renew our manufacturing sector.
We need to make sure that we have regional development agencies that work on good, sustainable,
high-quality jobs in every region of the province—north and south, rural and urban.
We need to make sure that we have a New Brunswick-first investment plan. This government has
created such a lousy investment climate that our own pension fund cannot even safely invest 1% of
its pension funds in New Brunswick. It is time for a made-in-New Brunswick plan. Our
entrepreneurs need help. We need funds with real job descriptions and real targets for job creation.
We need to start investing in R and D. We will do it. If they will not, get out of the way, because we
will.
We will be aggressive. We will no longer hear that a high-tech company like Research in Motion
was lured out from under our noses in Moncton by people from Halifax. We were not even in the
game. We lost those thousands of high-tech jobs because somebody else went to a Rolling Stones
concert in New Brunswick and got the deal done. I know you cannot always get what you want, but
will you at least try to get what you need? We will be aggressive. We will never again have a
Minister of Business New Brunswick say: We did not want them anyway; there is a lawsuit against
them. We will track down every high-tech job. We will fight to renew our IT sector. We will get the
buzz. If they will not, get out of the way, because we will.
The members from Campbellton and Dalhousie have talked about reinvesting in tourism and about
the contribution tourism makes to our gross domestic product. They are right. We need more than
a few ads in the New York Times. We need to rethink things. We need to work with our campground
operators to get them a sustainable strategy and to create jobs in tourism. We need to create a
tourism core. We need to work with our artists, actors, and performers to spruce up tourism sites
around New Brunswick. We need a strategy that makes artists real partners in attracting tourism.
We need to spend on our heritage—no more canceled Fort Nashwaak projects, but a real investment
in making tourists want to come to New Brunswick. It is not about a few ads in the New York Times,
and it is not about a strategy session at Larry’s Gulch. It is about getting real ideas with which to
build on our advantages. If they will not do it, then get out of the way, because we will.
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 22/25
Nous n’avons pas l’intention de laisser la Nouvelle-Écosse prendre les projets cinématographiques.
Nous aurons une vraie politique du film, avec un crédit d’impôt pour chaque film qui voudra être
tourné ici, au Nouveau-Brunswick. Nous n’allons pas perdre un autre projet cinématographique.
Nous allons créer la possibilité d’apprendre les habiletés ici, au Nouveau-Brunswick. S’ils ne sont
pas prêts à le faire, nous ne pourrons pas appuyer ce budget, parce que nous allons le faire.
No longer will our only hope for low-income New Brunswickers be a smaller-than-advertised power
rate. It is time for real hope for New Brunswickers who are struggling with poverty. There was not
one mention about affordable housing. The member for Saint John Harbour has spoken passionately
about this issue, and voters backed him. The Premier discovered it once he started knocking on
doors for the election.
You know what? I have seen too many low-income New Brunswickers who cannot look for work
or go out and get the skills because they are struggling to survive. When you are being audited every
day to have things clawed back, when every single day you are worried about whether or not you
are going to get into public housing, when every single day a bill collector is knocking on your door,
and when every single day you are spending two days fighting through bureaucracy at a call centre
to get your power turned on . . . These people cannot look for the dignity of work because we have
not given them dignity today. It is time for a new commitment to have affordable housing.
There is not one mention in this budget about the working poor. We know wages are dropping. We
know that we are losing full-time manufacturing jobs and replacing them with hourly, part-time jobs.
017 14:15
There is one thing that befuddles me about this government is every time, it says: Good news: We
have taken low-income New Brunswickers off the income tax rolls. Good news: More low-income
New Brunswickers off the income tax rolls than ever before. Good news: There are 50 000 New
Brunswickers who do not earn enough to pay any income tax.
The individual threshold is less than $14 000 a year. What kind of government is proud there are
50 000 New Brunswickers earning less than $14 000 a year? The way to help low-income New
Brunswickers is not to say that we have programs for low-income people. The way to take care of
low-income New Brunswickers is to help make them middle-class New Brunswickers. That is what
they want: the dignity of work. We will do it. We will make sure that we have real, meaningful
changes to social assistance that, first of all, help the working poor and help the family who raise
the kids and who play by the rules and are just looking for a bit of a break. We will make sure that
there is a program. There is nothing in this budget.
We will make sure that there are welfare-to-work programs that give people real opportunity. We
will reward volunteer programs and social capital so that we do not trap people in poverty where
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 23/25
they cannot make the connections: They cannot buy the clothes to go to a job interview. They cannot
even volunteer, because they have to be out looking for work. We will give people the dignity that
helps them succeed. If they will not put it in this budget, we are not voting for it, because we will
do it.
We know we have a threat with the declining population. As our population ages, we need people
here to do the work and pay the bills. Yet, we have fallen further behind than ever before. I do not
want to hypothesize why that is, but I have one theory. Here is a good hint: When it is a Five in Five
priority and it takes you months just to get the office set up, something is going seriously wrong. We
will not waste months getting an office set up. I do not know how long it would have taken this
minister to set up the office if it was not a priority.
We will not just say we have set up a Web site to advertise jobs that were already there so that we
can take credit for it. It is not about what you spin; it is about whom you find. We will be leaders.
We know that the greatest barrier to immigrants coming here is recognition of the skills they have
earned in other jurisdictions. We should be working with our community colleges to be a leader in
prior learning assessment. We should be making sure we are leaders in how we assess skills. We
should be exporting that technology to other provinces. We should be helping our universities attract
international students and helping them to find jobs here.
We need a real cities policy, not politicking, as we have seen from this government in the past, but
a cities policy that talks about the arts, open spaces, playgrounds, recreation facilities, and the things
that matter to families that might come here. We need to make sure that we work on a rural arts
strategy, as this leader promised, to make sure that the quality of life in our rural areas makes them
players and makes them home to those who want to move to New Brunswick. If this government
is not ready to do it, do not look for our vote on this budget, because we want to do it.
On the question of wellness and physical fitness, our leader has been a real leader on this file. We
have another fund, a $25-million fund. A fund does not get one kid playing, and it does not get one
team going. With this government’s record, I do not think anything is going to come out of the fund.
We need to do some things. We have seen too many opportunities for extracurricular activities, for
sports and recreation, come out of our elementary schools, where kids can get that first opportunity.
Regardless of income, regardless of whether they live in urban or rural New Brunswick, all children
deserve to have the joy of play. We will help working families afford recreation programs. We will
make sure that income is no barrier to wellness and physical fitness. If they will not do it, we will.
We will protect school facilities for rural areas. We will have a New Brunswick games to celebrate
the best our athletes have. We will stop staring at the study that says we need 150 minutes of
physical education, and we will do it. If they are not ready to do it, get out of the way, because we
will.
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 24/25
We will defend resource jobs. No more, in agriculture, will we say that the status quo is good
enough, after the cuts that they had all these years ago. We will invest in the best farming
techniques. The member for Kings East will make sure we do. There is no doubt about that. We will
support our farmers with help on the best growing techniques. We will invest in research and
agriculture. When the federal government offers partnerships like the Potato Research Centre, we
will be there to work with it. We will have a young farmers’ program. We will make sure that we
have the best technology to export to other places. We will make sure it is possible for young people
to take over family farms. If this government does not want to put it in this budget, get out of the
way, because we will.
018 14:20
We will not accept a deathbed conversion in forestry, with a tiny little relief policy. The policy of
allowing 50% of renewal expenditures, up to a limit of 50% of property taxes, sounds like a lot, but
when you work out the property taxes, it just is not going to cut it. We need to make sure that we
do not lose those value-added jobs. We cannot just get by on the status quo. On wages, on the old
way of doing things, Russia, Brazil, and other jurisdictions are beating us.
Il est maintenant temps de faire les investissements pour rénover nos scieries et de travailler avec
les gens du secteur forestier. Nous devons nous assurer d’accorder de vrais crédits d’impôt pour
aider les gens qui veulent investir dans la technologie afin de créer de nouveaux produits. Sous notre
leadership, nous sommes certains d’avoir un meilleur accès au bois. Nous ne voulons plus d’études,
nous voulons des actions dès aujourd’hui. Si ce gouvernement ne veut pas faire cela, eh bien, nous
ne pouvons appuyer le budget parce que nous allons le faire.
It is the time to build roads, not to cut ribbons. It is the time, in our Department of Justice and
Consumer Affairs, to make sure that we are enforcing support orders and that we do not accept
families living in poverty while we wait seven or eight months for an interim support order. In the
Department of Public Safety, it is time to prove that we can help flood victims in less than a year
and that we can have a program where the amount that goes to the provincial government, and not
to the working families who need help, is less than 75%.
We have had enough of spin and funds and symbols. It is time, instead, for a government that will
act. We have had enough of a government that hits the snooze bar time and time again. It is time for
a government that will get up in the mornings. We will focus on health care, on certainty and dignity
for our seniors. We will have a new charter of equal opportunity in our schools, so that rural or
urban, young or poor, no matter what a child’s learning disabilities might be, we will never give up
on their potential. We will make sure that we will throw open the doors to the middle class, with real
help on literacy training and with meaningful welfare reform. We will make sure that our
universities are ready to compete globally, and we will stop turning people away from our
community colleges. We will make our cities and rural communities a beacon to artists, to young
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 15 / Jour de séance 15
March 30, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 30 mars 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\15 2006-03-30 BL\15 2006-03-30bl.wpd 25/25
families, and to all those immigrants who want to come to New Brunswick for a better way of life.
We will never be content with the status quo. We will, instead, consider it a privilege to get up every
morning and work on these challenges because these are the ways in which we can create change.
Encore une fois, nous avons un choix entre un gouvernement fatigué et en panne d’idées et une
opposition qui a l’énergie et les idées pour faire de vrais changements.
Government has squandered its opportunity. We will vote against this budget. I want to be very
clear. I have heard government say: They just want to do it so that they can get power. Do you know
what? If you have the passion of your ideas, if you believe that what you are doing is right, and if
you are tired of watching a government get it wrong, of course, you want to govern because
governing is how we create change in people’s lives. There is nothing wrong with our wanting to
seize the opportunity to do better, just as there is nothing for this government to be proud of in
having squandered it.
I ask all members of this House to join me in voting against this budget, not because it is the result
of bad intentions or bad people but because, after seven years of bad management and missed
opportunity, it is time for a change. It is not a question of more money sometimes. It is a question
of more energy, more innovation, more creativity, and more ideas. I work every day with the people
in this caucus and with a leader who has inspired and challenged us to come up with new ways to
solve our problems. We cannot wait. We will defeat this government for one simple reason: We will
do better, and New Brunswick cannot wait. Thank you very much.
(L’ hon. M. Williams propose l’ajournement du débat.
Hon. Mr. Harrison moved that the House adjourn.
The House adjourned at 2:26 p.m.)