Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute previous speakers, on both sides of this Honourable House. In my eight – almost nine – years as a member of this Honourable chamber this is easily one of the most robust and thought-provoking budget debates I can recall.
I believe it speaks volumes about the level of maturity we have reached as a parliament and as a nation, when we can speak so passionately and objectively in the pursuit of what is best for our beloved country, Grenada.
Sitting through this debate, Mr. Speaker, I sense that members on both sides are genuinely interested in coming up with strategies and initiatives to move our country forward. But the issue of a new and fresh approach to how we view these matters – I will like to return to later.
(At this point, Hon. Peter David reported on his ministerial portfolios of Tourism, Civil Aviation and Culture, as well as on his work as MP for the Town of St. George. He also delivered the budget message of Hon. Glynis Roberts, who was unable to attend the March 14 sitting of the House. Hon. Roberts is MP for St. George South and Minister of Labour, Social Security and Ecclesiastical Affairs).
When I started my presentation, I alluded to what I sense as a historic turn this week in debating issues such as the national budget.
Indeed, this has been a watershed debate – a hallmark of some unprecedented frankness, which provides a new but refreshing challenge for our democracy.
If we embrace this development properly, the openness, this frankness, and see it for what it is, we will be a better and stronger nation for it.
As we look frankly and genuinely at the challenges facing our economy we have two choices – we can dig our heels in; or listen to the demands of the people and the advice of our friends – and even our perceived foes.
All of us may never agree with everything that was said in this chamber this week, but we must duly and respectfully consider all the debating issues.
We must not discount other ideas, because of who they come from; nor must we seek to punish and marginalize robust ideas that may be radically different from our point of view.
This current economic challenge that faces us as a nation – demands a different way of doing business.
Senseless partisanship and political tribalism must give way to a united sense of purpose.
We cannot afford the luxury of discounting ideas – even if those ideas force us to take a second look at what we have put on the table.
Let us not personalize the real concerns expressed here. Those concerns represent the sentiments of individuals and families in the constituencies we represent. Therefore, let’s not hound those who have different ideas of how we can do better for the people of Grenada.
Mr Speaker, I was not in the chamber when my colleague Karl Hood, the MP for St George’s South East spoke yesterday; I was at a funeral; but I have since had the chance to hear some of his presentation.
Minister Hood has surpassed many of us in his boldness and forth-rightness; and it is not something that can be done easily when one is in a position of relative comfort.
While I may not agree with every point he made, it must be understood that he spoke to a broader national cause, that had me thinking; and that must have all of us thinking.
What I discern are real and genuine concerns about this budget, and about how we – together – face the challenges of the current economic situation.
Even at this stage the real question some people are asking and remains:
How do we close the inherent deficit gap?
It’s not a question that faces the Minister of Finance but all of us.
There are signs of a turn-around and of economic growth – and this is not something we can discount nor ridicule. Economic growth means something – and it helps address certain economic fundamentals that point to a right direction.
But real economic growth also has to be felt by real people.
There must also be a balance between the macro-economic need of balancing the books – and to borrow a phrase form a regional politician – the real practical needs of balancing people’s lives.
In other words, as Honourable Joseph Gilbert, the MP for St. Patrick West put it yesterday, we must find a way to help people who are “scrunting for work, find something to do.’’
Any economic gain will be quickly eroded, if too many of our people are left behind.
We cannot call on people to make shared sacrifices, if they suspect that when the growth comes there will not be shared benefits.
The people – especially the most vulnerable – must be at the center of all we do; not just saying that they are at the center of all we do but visibly demonstrating through policy actions that they truly are at the center. The people must always be at the center.
There must be a theological and moral basis of the economics we promote – based on the biblical precepts of feed the hungry and clothe the naked.
It is that same radical book called the Bible that declares: whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.
And as we seek a new dispensation and a new approach, we must resist the temptation to demonize every opposition suggestion; falling into the same narrow-minded trap that they fell into when they were on this side of the House.
To resort to that will make our politics too cheap and too petty. We must not demonize ideas because of whence they came.
The reason they are in opposition now is that the people decided we are the best team to solve the problems – and we must begin addressing those without any conjunction or any excuse. We are here to solve problems.
Our politics must not be about who can score one over the other. Our politics must change into how much we can score for the people of River Road and River Salle; Hermitage; Hillsborough and Harford Village and all the other areas in between.
Our individual egos must give way to the pursuit of the greater good; and we must be bold in charting different courses, if they redound to the benefit of the people who depend on us the most.
Yes, we are part of a team; and there must be collective responsibility. But the responsibility can only be collective, if the decision-making is also collective.
In going forward, we must understand that when we take varying ideas on board, we do not diminish our positions. In fact, we strengthen them.
I was thinking to myself last night, it is a pity that the approved budget could not take into account and reflect several of the ideas and recommendations I have heard articulated in this chamber over the last couple of days.
Then I asked myself, what is stopping this Honourable chamber from taking on board some of the ideas enunciated in this debate?
The National Democratic Congress that I joined twelve years ago was never exclusive in its orientation. We have always had the capacity to embrace differing views and ideas for the national good.
I believe that we must continue to be open-minded in evaluating and embracing all ideas and suggestions, contributed in good faith, and designed to help in navigating Grenada through very perilous and unchartered economic waters.
Mr. Speaker, even though the budget, as a document, has been tabled and will be passed with few, if any amendments, I would like to strongly recommend that the government, of which I am a part, embrace some of the better ideas and suggestions that have been proffered in this debate.
More so, I am suggesting that we go further and circulate this budget document as a work in progress.
The budget as presented is well-intentioned, Mr. Speaker. And is the result of tremendous effort by many. But I believe it could benefit from the input of a wider cross section of Grenadians.
I do not believe we should, at this stage of our development, adopt a “know all” posture; where all knowledge, wisdom and understanding are viewed as contained, exclusively to the NDC. That would be to our detriment.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that any fiscal package advanced in Grenada at this time has its best chance of success if the social partners, civil society and opposition are permitted further input and fully embrace what is being proposed.
It is particularly important to get the labour movement on board because given the fiscal challenges we are facing, we no doubt will be asking their members to make specific sacrifices this year – and in the years going forward.
We are a government that was inspired and formed by a wide cross section of Grenadians– and we must ensure that we take them and keep them on board, as we try to find solutions going forward.
I am suggesting, therefore, that the concerns and criticisms leveled against this document be taken in the spirit of objectivity which I sense was intended. We ought not to shoot down the message because of a lack of camaraderie with the messenger.
A good suggestion is a good suggestion and this government, I strongly advise, must be open-minded in its management of criticisms going forward.
The physical location and socio-economic makeup of my own constituency demand that I be in regular contact with the people whom I represent.
I know what and how they are feeling and I know what they were hoping for and expecting from the NDC government in this budget.
Grenadians are not unreasonable people, neither are they unaware of the economic realities confronting this country.
I detect, however, that they were expecting a bit more from this side in the articulation of a path forward for Grenada.
I sense that unemployed persons, in particular, were yearning for a more clearly defined path to progress and prosperity.
I have heard from housewives and single parent families who have told me that they were hoping for some measure of cost of living relief in this budget.
I know they are those who expected the unreasonable and the irresponsible and they could never have been pleased. But I side with those who say that a little more creative thought could have landed us a more inspiring and reassuring package.
I believe the tone and nature of this debate provide us with the unique opportunity to amend our policies as we go forward.
Several of the ideas advanced from both sides in this debate do not have outrageous cost implications and can therefore be factored in to our policies.
Indeed, the time might be right for us to establish a bi-partisan extra-parliamentary forum; a forum in which we seek to bring some of the best brains Grenada has available to sit and chart a path forward for our nation in its quest to navigate the ship of state in what the Finance Minister, Honourable Nazim Burke, himself described as an “economic storm.’’
It’s a raging storm, Mr Speaker, that we shall continue to confront in the foreseeable future. I think we can all agree on that.
A development in the recent past that also had me thinking about the dire need for national solidarity and national consensus, particular in this difficult and unusual time, is the issue of the Taiwan loan.
The way the Taiwanese have sought to strangle our country by effectively declaring economic war on this proud and sovereign nation, must appeal to the sense of Grenadianism in all of us.
I have heard all the arguments and debating points about how this has come to be – and if we are looking to play the blame came, there is enough of it to go around.
But if this does not cause us to band together; to stand together and to find a solution together; then perhaps nothing will.
We must stop pointing fingers and face this challenge with a rare breed of nationalism and a determination to defend the homeland from economic ruin.
This is a Grenadian problem that requires a united Grenadian solution.
I noted that in the presentation of the member for St George’s North West, he called for a united approach to dealing with the issues.
It is a worthy call – but Mr Opposition Leader –you know the old saying: “Action speaks louder than words.’’ The words we utter here in this Honourable house must not be mere rhetoric but an indication of the start of a new phase in this nation’s history.
We will take you up on this call. Because what we say must be manifested in unity of efforts that will lead to the development of our nation and the delivery of greater social and economic benefits for all our people.
As I said before, I do not believe we should adopt the posture of rabid partisanship in which we look solely to any one political party for all wisdom and ideas.
Grenada is too small for us to give succor to such polarization. That has undone us in the past, Mr Speaker.
We would be damned as modern day leaders, if we allowed egos to get the better of us going forward. We must all find ourselves worthy – or else neither history nor our grand children will regard us well.
I offer these proposals today to this House and the nation, not out of any selfish ambition or for personal aggrandizement. My whole adult life has been life of service, where I’ve tried to do everything to the best of my God-given abilities.
It was service, motivated by a desire to put an end to people’s suffering and to ensure their survival, that encouraged me to join the National Democratic Congress and spent most of my years as the party’s General Secretary.
Mr. Speaker I know there will be those who will attack me for making these calls. There are those who relish the tribalisation of this country, and I expect to hear from them very soon.
But that will not deter. It is something I learnt from my late and dear mother, Marcella David, who stood up for what she believed in and paid a price. Her tenacity runs in my veins.
I believe we can do better. I believe we must do better.
Last week I met and spoke with Mr. Peter Delora, the Head of American Airlines Caribbean and Latin America Division. In speaking about the beauty of Grenada he said, “When God made Grenada he was in a good mood.’’
I believe we can build a better Grenada but it can’t be built on an infrastructure of tribalism.
Let’s stay true to God’s plan for this beautiful land. Let’s us work for Grenada. Let us cease being tribal. Let us build this beautiful nation for all the people of Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.