May
3, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 21
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
I'd
like to welcome to our public galleries today two relatives of Mr. Saul
Keefe who will be remembered during today's Honour 100 Commemoration. They
are Mr. Dean Brinton, great-nephew of Mr. Keefe, and Ms. Marie Keefe from
the Speaker's office who is the cousin of Dean Brinton.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Members' statements today
are the Members for the Districts of St. John's Centre, Baie Verte Green
Bay, Torngat Mountains, Conception Bay East Bell Island, Placentia West
Bellevue and Harbour Grace Port de Grave.
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I am thrilled to stand here today to honour and congratulate
activists in our communities who are working hard to change the landscape on
mental health.
In
St. John's Centre alone, CHANNAL and volunteer-run Better Days are at the
forefront of our mental health movement every day, actively embodying the
critical praxis: not about us without us.
And
our new Community Coalition For Mental Health is developing a comprehensive
plan to implement substantive programs and, equally exciting, begin work
with RIAC in assisting refugees.
These advocacy groups remind us: depression will rank second only to heart
disease as the leading cause of disability worldwide by 2020. Recently,
lawyer Mark Gruchy spoke movingly to Waterford Valley High students about
his own experience with mental illness. He said, Stigma is about fear, but
resiliency comes from being part of a community you are the community
and you will build the community!
I
thank all these folks who are working on the challenge to build more
effective responses and mental health supports. I encourage all residents to
raise their voices and GET LOUD for mental health.
Let's all embody the Canadian Mental Health Association's campaign, GET
LOUD.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in
this hon. House today to congratulate the Northeast Sabres of the Central
Newfoundland Hockey League in capturing the championship for the first time
since entering the league in 2013.
This
year, the league had four teams: the Exploits Blades; the Lewisporte
Seahawks; the Twillingate Combines; and the Northeast Sabres.
The
Sabres finished the 2015-2016 regular season with five wins, four losses,
and three overtime losses, good for second place. They faced the Exploits
Blades in the first round of the playoffs and swept the series in three
straight. The Combines got past the Seahawks in their playoff round to set
up a repeat final from the previous year between the Twillingate Combines
and the Sabres.
The
Sabres stole the first two games in Twillingate and came back to their home
rink, the Tommy Ricketts Arena in Baie Verte, and didn't disappoint the
standing room only crowd, turning in a dramatic overtime win to take the
championship.
Team
members are from all parts of the Baie Verte Green Bay District. I
congratulate Northeast Sabres Coach Lyndon Austin, the players, and all the
supportive fans of my district and look forward to next year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
rise in this hon. House today to recognize Susie Merkuratsuk, a young lady
from Nain who has proven that miracles do happen.
Over
a year ago Susie was diagnosed with TB-induced meningitis. She was medevaced
to St. John's where she slipped into a life-threatening coma. During
treatment, doctors discovered she was in the early stages of pregnancy.
As
first, the doctors were unsure if they'd be able to save Susie's life, let
alone see her through a full-term pregnancy. However, despite all odds,
Susie fought back. She slowly pulled out of her coma and at first was unable
to move due to the damages this serious disease had inflicted on her, but
she continued to push herself.
In
the last year Susie has managed to regain many of her abilities, and with
the help of staff delivered her baby. Her health continues to progress, and
although she may never fully recover from the devastation that meningitis
inflicted upon her, she was able to return home.
I
ask all hon. Members to join me in wishing Susie all the best as he
continues to fight back against a dreaded disease that has claimed so many
lives. She is truly an inspiration to us all.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
stand today in this hon. House to congratulate a group of volunteers for
undertaking a very valuable project. Mr. Speaker, I speak of Radio Bell
Island which has operated for the past five years at St. Michael's High on
Bell Island.
This
asset includes a group of volunteers from the community, an operation
manager but, particularly, students from St. Michael's High. The shows
program includes news, interviews, a talk show, call-in song requests,
culture, sports and history segments and everything else to catch the ear of
the preschooler to the seniors. The station has listeners in all parts of
the country, and as far away as France.
While the whole of the community benefits from the operations of the
station, there's one group that gains immensely; these being the students of
St. Michael's High, who were trained in every aspect of the techniques of
broadcasting, from interviewing, to research, to the use of technology.
I am
pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that a number of these students who volunteer
have shown an interest in a career in the broadcasting industry.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Radio Bell Island on
their fifth anniversary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in
this hon. House today to salute five students and two teachers from Pearce
Junior High School who raised an astounding amount of money during the
recent Shave for the Brave charity event.
Shave for the Brave participants commit to shaving their heads in a show of
solidarity for young adults who are battling cancer. I once participated in
it myself and I'm still waiting for it all to grow back.
The
participating students were: Claire Broders, Karen Sharpe, Emily
Fitzpatrick, Josh Kilfoy and Jonathon Symes. The teachers were Matthew
Peddle and Jonathon Hickman.
In
fact, Mr. Speaker, Claire Broders was the top fundraiser for all of Canada.
Her ambitious goal was to raise $3,000 and she ended up raising over $5,000,
almost half of the school's total. In total, the school raised a total of
$10,284, its highest amount ever.
I
ask all Members of this hon. House to join with me in thanking the students
and teachers, and countless Canadians who stand in the fight against cancer,
and in particular support of young people living with cancer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
It
is with a heavy heart that I stand today to honour the life of five-year-old
Quinn Butt. The world was devastated to learn of her tragic death, which
occurred in Carbonear on April 24th.
Although her precious life was cut short, her impact continues to be mighty.
Those who knew her best say she was wise beyond her years. She loved to
dress up, wearing her mom Andrea's high-heeled shoes. She was a ballerina
but she also enjoyed playing hockey with her friends.
Quinn's favourite colours were pink and purple. Across the province over the
past week, splashes of pink and purple were front and center in her honour.
Mourners as far away as Italy donned pink and purple for Quinn and there was
a special light show at Magic Kingdom in Orlando, Florida.
More
than 3,000 people came out to light it up at the candlelight vigil in
Harbour Grace on Thursday night. Quinn's death is having a significant
impact on the lives of others. She is gone, but she will never be forgotten.
Quinn has captured the lives of many. Rest in peace little girl.
Colleagues, please honour Quinn Butt and cherish her life.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before we recognize
Honour 100, I think it is only fitting that the private Member's statement
today is something that has touched not only everybody in this province, but
I think people around the world we take a moment of silence to keep Quinn
in our thoughts and prayers.
(Moment of silence.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The Commemoration
of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel
MR. SPEAKER:
For Honour 100 today, I
recognize the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
will now read into the record the following 40 names of those who lost their
lives in the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal
Newfoundland Naval Reserve or the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine. This will
be followed by a moment of silence.
Lest
we forget: Francis Kearsey, Patrick Keating, William Keats, Aloysius Keefe,
Saul Keefe, Mack Keepin, James G. Keeping, Solomon Keeping, Stanley Keeping,
William Kehoe, Albert Kelly, Daniel Kelly, Francis Kelly, James Joseph
Kelly, Michael Francis Kelly, Thomas Joseph Kelly, Edward William Kendall,
Michael Francis Kennedy, William Kenney, Martin Patrick Kent, Martin Keough,
Robert Kershaw, Aaron King, Alexander King, Arthur King, Ephraim King,
George Joseph King, Henry A. King, Jabez William King, John F. King, Joseph
Andrew King, William King, William King, William John King, William P. King,
Patrick Kirby, William Kirby, George Samuel Knight, Thomas Knight and
William Knight.
(Moment of silence.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Please be seated.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Today the provincial government has released the transitional rules for the
HST rate increase in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our government knows that
this has been a difficult budget for people, but the magnitude of a $1.8
billion deficit leaves this province in a very serious financial situation
and this figure could have been much larger if not for our decisive actions.
Announcing transitional rules as early as possible helps to reduce the level
of uncertainty for businesses and consumers and allows businesses
sufficient lead time to implement the system changes necessary to implement
these rules. The details of the HST transitional rules can be found on the
Department of Finance website.
Mr. Speaker, transitional rules are required to
determine which tax rate would apply in respect of transactions that
straddle the July 1 implementation date. Under these transitional rules,
suppliers are generally required to charge the HST at the new rate of 15 per
cent on any purchases or considerations that becomes due without having been
paid, or is paid without having been received, on or after July 1, 2016 for
supplies of taxable property or services. Specific transitional rules will
apply to certain real property transactions.
Mr. Speaker, we have to make the right choices. While
these choices are not easy ones, they are necessary to put our province back
on track.
Thank you.
SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement. Mr. Speaker, many businesses, real estate agents and other sales
people would have been familiar with the transitional rules as this was a
decision of our government on January 1 to bring in the HST; however,
hastily rushed to cancel it by the government today and then flip-flop back
and made a part of this budget.
The Premier and Minister of Finance created not only
confusion among the business community but also confusion among consumers.
What's more concerning is that in their rash decision to cancel the HST, the
Premier and Minister of Finance also lost revenue for this province
somewhere in the range of $100 million. To put that in comparison, Mr.
Speaker, that's more than the Liberal levy will generate this year. That
certainly could have been avoided.
Mr. Speaker, $100 million is a lot of money. I wonder
how many libraries could have remained open, how many multigrade classrooms
could have been prevented, how many current bus routes for kids could have
been maintained.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of her
statement. An unusually complicated message for a Ministerial Statement, I
say.
I ask the minister: What is she planning to do to help
small businesses understand, prepare and navigate through the new complex
transitional rules? It's a great deal of new red tape for a small
enterprise. Will government provide training and guidance for administering
this new tax? A tax, I remind her, she campaigned on not increasing but did
when elected.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister Responsible for Fire and Emergency Services.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, when disaster strikes, the time to prepare has already passed.
To raise awareness about the importance of being prepared, May 1-7 is
nationally recognized as Emergency Preparedness Week. This year's theme is
Plan. Prepare. Be Aware.
Mr.
Speaker, emergencies can come in the form of floods, fires, hurricanes, ice
storms, cold snaps, landslides and we experience all of these. That is why
it is so important to be prepared and have a plan. Everyone has a role to
play in being prepared for an emergency and Emergency Preparedness Week
encourages residents to take a few simple steps.
Knowing the risks specific to your community and our province can help you
prepare. Make a plan so you and your family know what to do. Get an
emergency kit so you are prepared to be self-sufficient for at least 72
hours in an emergency. For more information and resources I would encourage
everyone to visit
www.GetPrepared.ca.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this hon. House to take an active role in
their community to help build a culture of preparedness. With your help,
together we can communicate the importance of emergency preparedness to all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.
I
want to thank the minister for an advance of his statement. We, too,
recognize May 1-7 as Emergency Preparedness Week. Mr. Speaker, I'd really
like to thank the volunteers in our communities, especially the volunteer
fire departments that do so much for municipalities to make sure that
they're prepared for any emergencies that can happen in their towns.
I
know, as a former mayor, that we work closely with the volunteer fire
department in Torbay, making sure that everything was done in our town so
that any emergency that took place, we could make sure that people knew
where to go to, what was available and stuff like that. It's very important
for communities, but it's also very important for us to be prepared in our
homes.
There are little things that you can do like make sure that there's water
available, make sure you have a flashlight, make sure there are batteries
for the flashlight and little things like that
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
that everybody can
be prepared. We never know when an emergency can take place.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It's good advice
that everyone should have a plan in place in the case of an emergency. I
encourage everyone to spend a little more time preparing for one with family
and/or loved ones. Emergency kits, muster points, contact procedures are all
excellent things to agree on ahead of time.
I
also suggest government have clear and reliable communication strategies in
place. They are so important when a disaster strikes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Forestry and Agrifoods.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise
to advise the public about forest fire season, which began on May 1 on the
Island portion of the province and will begin on May 15 in Labrador. The
season ends September 30 on the Island and in Labrador.
Due
to the low snowfall this winter, we anticipate early drying conditions.
Residents planning to burn brush as part of spring cleanup activities should
be aware of how quickly fire can spread beyond their property.
In
2015, 70 fires were caused by residents in Newfoundland and Labrador, the
majority during May and June, when many people were burning brush. Some of
these fires were preventable.
Reducing the number of human-caused fires is an integral component of our
fire prevention program. A permit to burn is required under the
Forestry Act and can be obtained at no cost at regional or district
forest management offices throughout the province.
Mr.
Speaker, the lighting of fires for cooking and camping does not require a
permit, but certain forest fire regulations must be followed. Information on
those regulations can be found on the provincial government website at
www.faa.gov.nl.ca/forestry.
A
toll-free number is available to report forest fires during forest fire
season. The number is 1-866-709-FIRE (3473).
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement. When I received
it, I kind of hoped he'd come to the House dressed as Smokey the Bear today
and that's an image I haven't been able to get out of my head ever since.
We,
too, join with the government in encouraging safe practices among our
residents when having fires outdoors, whether it's burning brush, cooking,
or simply for recreational purposes.
A
vast number of forest fires are due to human error or negligence. Curbing
our behaviour and employing a more responsible routine can prevent these
instances from happening. We know forest fires can cause significant damage
to our environment, our personal property, and may potentially be fatal to
those caught in a fire, or to our brave women and men who fight them.
Before having an outdoor fire of any sort, please check the fire index,
consult with a local forestry management office, or visit the department's
website, as the minister said, but most importantly, use care and common
sense. And in the words of Smokey the Bear: Only You Can Prevent Forest
Fires.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Unnecessary
human-caused forest fires do cause too much destruction of our natural
habitat and people must learn to be more careful with fire outdoors.
I do
thank, though, the dedicated men and women of our many voluntary fire
departments who will be called to help professional firefighters combat this
season's forest fires. I hope the cutting of $400,000 from the department's
fire suppression and communications budget doesn't impede or make more
difficult the work these people do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Minister of Justice and Public Safety is on the record here in the House of
Assembly from his time back in Opposition when from time to time he asked
government to expand and improve the Adult Dental Program. He even talked
about the importance of considering the dignity of people. However, now the
Liberal government has reduced this program significantly, by $3 million.
Can
the Minister of Health clarify exactly what's been eliminated from the Adult
Dental Program and what he expects the impacts will be?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for
the question, Mr. Speaker.
The
Adult Dental Program includes Foundation clients; it did before and it will
do afterwards. The changes were made to align the Dental Program with that
of other jurisdictions. The previous plan had been introduced at a time of
plenty, which is now long since passed.
Those clients of plans that were in the process of having work done prior
to the changes will have their applications processed in due course.
Thereafter, the plan is limited to Foundation Plan members.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, what we're hearing is that seniors cannot get their dentures.
Low-income workers, hard workers of Newfoundland and Labrador will no longer
be able to escape pain and suffering. They are left hanging in the wind.
This
is a most serious issue, Mr. Speaker. Treatments can expand for several
months and people are being dropped without notice. It's caused havoc for
patients, but also from dentists who are very concerned about this.
I
ask the minister: How can he justify such a decision that has such a
significant impact on people who need this very much-needed service?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
changes to the plan have been made to streamline it with other jurisdictions
in Canada. Folk who are in need of emergency services, as far as dental work
is concerned, will still be covered. That can be done through a separate
process.
Those folk who are already in the system, we appreciate they have
expectations and those will be honoured, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
know the Members opposite have been focused in the past on the least, last
and lowest, but this program was heralded as one of the best in the country
and now they're taking this service away from people who need it most.
Mr.
Speaker, with the closure of services and health care clinics in rural parts
of our province, the government is forcing people, especially those with
higher health care needs, to choose between living without services or
making very expensive moves to larger centres.
I
ask the Premier: Are the cuts to rural Newfoundland and Labrador part of
your stronger tomorrow?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the former premier for his question. The cuts that we've seen or the
changes that we've seen in rural areas and in particular as a result of the
budget actions that have been taken really is part of a stronger tomorrow
for Newfoundland and Labrador. It's part of putting in place a better
foundation for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
It
is part of putting in place a foundation that is sustainable, unlike the
previous administration that made decisions not only in health care, but in
many other programs that we've seen in our province like reducing taxes to
the highest income earners in our province in 2007. These were not
sustainable tax decreases, essentially added up to nearly $4 billion. Four
billion dollars that I would say right now we could use to provide essential
health care services in all areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, last evening
the Minister of Health stood on his feet in this House and said that the
enhanced breast screening program was cut by the Liberal government because
it was of no benefit to anyone. The response we've received to the
minister's statement was overwhelming. Mr. Speaker, 20 per cent of breast
cancers are found in women under 50. Wives, mothers, sisters and loved ones
are alive today because of early detection. Women should have a choice.
I
ask the minister: How can you state that breast cancer screening to women
under 50 is of no benefit?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
would just like to correct the Member opposite. I didn't mention anything
about enhanced breast screening last night. It is not me that is stating
that it is of no benefit to low-risk women under 50. It is the Canadian Task
Force on Preventative Health Care.
Their report out in 2011 was available to the previous ministers of health
sitting opposite who chose not to act on it. As a result, we have spent
money on services which have been of no benefit, created the worried well
and denied the opportunity to spend that money in areas where it would be
better spent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Well thank goodness for
the webcast, Mr. Speaker, and it's travelling around on Facebook. Women in
this province who can no longer avail of that early detection breast
screening program are very, very upset, Mr. Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
I say to the minister, we
know that the Minister of Finance has stated that they will not make
decisions based on who shouts the loudest, but I ask Liberal Members to tell
that to the cancer survivors who are alive today because of early detection.
I
say to the minister: As you rip clinics and health services away and make it
harder to see a doctor, how in the world is this not going to have an impact
on people's lives?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Member opposite confuses the issue of asymptomatic low-risk individuals who
are in a position possibly to benefit from screening, and the evidence shows
that that does not occur under the age of 50. The confusion is people who
have symptoms or have concerns have free access to primary health care
across the province. They can raise those concerns with their primary care
provider. They can be assessed clinically and investigated. That has not
changed, nor will that change. We are simply trying to make sure that the
health care budget is spent in the most effective way for the benefit of all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, many schools are starting to get the true picture of what Liberal
choices will mean. Parents are outraged with the reality that classrooms
will be combined with two grades in many schools throughout the province.
Grades three and four will share a teacher in classroom in many schools; the
same goes for fives and sixes.
I
ask the minister: How can you justify proceeding with full-day kindergarten
at the expense of older children who will now have to merge in combined
classrooms?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, it
embarrasses me that the Member opposite has so little confidence in the
skill of our teachers in this province.
In
September, there will be 170 multigrade classrooms in this province, not
counting combined grades classrooms and there will be far fewer of them. We
have had multigraded classrooms for the 12 years that administration was in
power.
Is
the Member now suggesting that those teachers who have been teaching in
multigrade classrooms all along are not qualified to achieve the educational
outcomes in the curriculum? Is that what he's saying? Those 170 teachers
this September in multigrade classrooms, is that what you're saying?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, what I am
saying is I do have a lack of confidence in the minister to make decisions
that will be in the best interest of the children and students of this
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Will the Minister of
Education reconsider delaying implementation of full-day kindergarten? How
can you slash and cut teachers and programs from grades one to 12 while
spending approximately $100 million over the next three years on this new
program?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, as I said
last night here in the House of Assembly at great length, there's quite
enough evidence to show that the return on investment in our smallest
children is worth it. Plans were well underway. The previous administration
introduced this program and planned it for September. If they had such
austere concerns about it why didn't they pull the plug on it before they
let the train down the track before this government came into office.
We're trying to do what is best for children in Newfoundland and Labrador in
early year's education. In many provinces in Canada they have junior
kindergarten for four-year-olds. All the other Atlantic provinces have
full-day kindergarten. Why does the Member want us to stay behind the rest
of the country?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, the return
on the Dental Program is a good investment too, but they're not doing that
either.
According to the president of the NLTA, schools are being asked, and I
quote: place 'good' kids in the multi-grade class & place kids with needs
in other class. This is insulting and disgraceful.
Why
are school administrators being forced to make these decisions?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, no such
communication came from either the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development or either of the two school districts. So I'm not sure
where the president of the NLTA is getting that.
The
president of the NLTA has also referred to students in combined grades as
leftover students. I would never refer to any one child in Newfoundland and
Labrador as a leftover. That sort of language is unbecoming of educators; it
is unbecoming of our profession.
Our
teachers are capable of teaching in multigrade and combined grade
classrooms, and that is a fact. The same as teachers in downtown Toronto
teach in combined grade classrooms and downtown Edmonton teach in combined
grade classrooms. Those are the facts. Let's have a little bit of respect
for the profession and clean the language up here, please.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, the
Opposition on this side, particularly, respect the education system.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
That's why we're
responding to the emails we're getting, the concerns we're getting from the
leaders in the education system.
Mr.
Speaker, as many as 2,400 students will be in multigrade classrooms in
September. The NLTA is on record stating this move will not improve student
achievements and will be the cause of poor student outcomes. We know this
will increase the workload and stress on teachers.
I
ask the minister: Will you put a stop to multigrade classrooms?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, we have had
multigrade classrooms in Newfoundland and Labrador since the beginning of
Newfoundland and Labrador's schooling system. There were multigrade
classrooms, over a hundred of them, in the school system starting last
September.
Every year that the previous administration was in power we had somewhere in
the order of over 100 multigrade classrooms in Newfoundland and Labrador. So
I don't know why the Member all of a sudden wants to change what has been
done in the school system for decades and decades and decades.
The
combined grades initiative reflects trends in the rest of Canada whereby we
are trying to achieve efficiencies in the teacher allocation formula. Our
teachers are qualified to do that. We have confidence in that. Why doesn't
the Member opposite?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, when the
Member was in the Opposition and the critic, he wanted to put education
forward, move it forward. What he's now proposing is moving education
backward again, Mr. Speaker, not good enough.
I
ask the minister: What supports and training will teachers receive to
prepare for multi-grade classrooms? What is your plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, when I was
in Opposition, I was decrying that over a two-year period that previous
administration cut no less than 238 teaching positons. That was one of the
things I was talking about over there, unlike this year where we are seeing
a reduction of just 73 in comparison.
As I
said, I have far more confidence in our teachers than the Member opposite
does. Many of our teachers have experience teaching in multi-graded
classrooms because we have had hundreds of them over the past decade in this
province.
Many
of them have received professional development training in the area of
differentiated instruction, which is key and crucial to teaching in this
area. If there is additional professional development, we will see that it
is provided. If there is PD needed, we will have it.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, it took us a
decade to cut the number of teachers that this minister cut in one budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Yesterday the Minister of
Education called a news conference to defend the recent announcements
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
that 54 libraries would
close. Instead of saying that he would listen to the concerns of the public,
the Minister of Education blamed the media, saying that these people are not
getting the full story. This, just days after the Finance Minister said that
the people did not understand the budget.
I
ask the Premier: Your ministers are not taking responsibility for any of the
budget decisions; will you?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I know that
the previous minister of Finance, Mr. Wiseman, had some difficulty with math
but now it's obvious that the Member opposite has great difficulty with it
as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
He says that over a
course of a decade, they didn't cut as many teachers as we did. In 2013, the
previous administration cut 160 positions. In 2015, they cut 78 positions.
This year the reduction is 73; 160 plus 78 is greater than 73.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
The Minister of Education
said that he encourages people to send him their feedback, but he also said
unequivocally that there will no changes made to the budget for education.
I
ask the minister: How are you listening if you're not willing to make any
changes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I've spent
hours since the budget was released explaining to people the evidence-based
decision making that went into this year's budget. We're trying to explain
to people, despite all of the sort of overblown, hysterical machinations of
the Official Opposition the Official Opposition likes to take
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
things and twist them
and spin them.
For
example, the Member openly admitted he has no idea that we have had hundreds
and hundreds of multi-grade classrooms in this province over the course of
when they were in Opposition. He's completely ignorant of that fact. He has
no idea of the true nature of the teacher reductions that happened by their
own administration. I think you first educate yourself on what you did
before you try to start telling us what to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I recognize the Member, the constant interruption by certain Members
during Question Period is unacceptable.
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
realize the minister is getting very defensive, particularly something that
is overblown by the NLTA, by the Federation of Students unions, by a
multitude of parent groups and organizations here, Mr. Speaker.
I
ask the hon. Member: Changes are coming to school busing, changes which will
impact 30 schools, 17 communities; 37 less buses will be on our roads, which
will result in changes to opening and closing times of schools.
I
ask the minister: Can he clarify what is your plan for busing in September?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I've been
waiting for this to come up. Under the previous administration there were
regulations imposed on the busing industry in this province that increased
the cost of purchasing a bus by tens of thousands of dollars. Previously,
bus operators were buying buses in the order of $20,000 and using them for a
small number of years. The previous administration insisted on the purchase
of buses to the tune of over $100,000 per unit. Well, guess who pays for all
of that?
Our
busing costs have skyrocketed as a result of the poor administration and
management of the previous government. Our busing funding has now gone up to
close to $60 million a year because of their decisions. They went in and
wrecked it and now we have to pay for it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
So from what I'm hearing
here, Mr. Speaker, safety and school bus travel time is not important to
that administration over there. Shameful, Mr. Speaker, shameful. No wonder
that parents are rightfully concerned.
I
ask the minister: Will school-aged children be on the road longer before
they arrive in the schools? How does this change reflect the stronger
tomorrow for kids that you promised?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the school
district has made changes to routes for busing as a result of the
skyrocketing cost of busing in this province that was stimulated by changes
the previous administration insisted on.
We
are spending millions and millions more this year than the previous one on
busing contracts that are negotiated with that industry. The school district
is trying to grapple with that. As a result, they're doubling up some runs.
We do realize that causes some inconvenience for parents and students but
we're in a difficult situation and we simply don't have millions of dollars
to pay for the errors made by the previous government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Municipalities have been given a one-year reprieve before libraries are
closed.
I
ask the minister: How many of the 25 municipalities have been asked to make
decisions on future operations of the libraries in their towns?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, this
government has come to the realization in collaboration with the public
libraries board that the libraries we're going to need into the future are
far different than the ones that we've needed in the past.
Twenty-five of the libraries in this province that are operated by
municipalities, we will have communication in those instances. We will have
collaboration with communities. We are hoping that over the course of the
next year municipalities will have an opportunity to take on the operations
of community libraries, if they choose.
In
the meantime, the public libraries board is going to be working on the
development of 41 regional libraries to create a more robust service, rather
than the withering one that the previous administration resided over.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
wonder is the minister listening, actually listening to the people who use
these libraries?
Mr.
Speaker, municipalities were pleased to see the funding that we put in place
last year remain the same in the budget.
I
ask the minister: Are you asking municipalities to spend this funding to
keep their libraries open?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
question is: Was there ever any request to municipalities to take funding
from the MOGs? The answer is absolutely, no.
What
we will do, we will deal with municipalities because we know this is a
service in a lot of municipalities that a lot of people want in their
communities. Municipalities have contacted me already and said: What can we
do to help with this? How can we help with these services?
So
for the Member to suggest that there's any form of forcing municipalities to
take any part of their MOG is absolutely false, absolutely incorrect. It was
never discussed by me or any official in our department.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker,
municipalities run their budgets on no deficits at all. So they had the
funding allocated. How are they going to pay for it? There's added funding
to come here.
Most
municipalities are paying for heat and light, cleaning, snow clearing and in
some cases, like the Town of Pouch Cove, the town also contributes $8,200 to
an after school program in library hours.
I
ask the minister: How can you expect municipalities to pay more when they're
already doing their part?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
idea is that over the next year 25 municipally located libraries will have
an opportunity to be transferred to the local level. That may be
municipalities in some cases may choose to operate them themselves. In other
instances that may be local groups, community groups, service groups. We're
not sure.
We
are ensuring that over the transitional period that individual plans are put
in place that respect the individual unique circumstances in our
municipalities in our communities and all of the strong ties that we are
aware that are associated with these library facilities in communities. None
of that is lost on the government, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
What
is lost on this government is the amount of money that municipalities will
now have to come up with to keep these libraries going. These libraries are
important services in rural Newfoundland, and I talked to all the rural
MHAs. In rural Newfoundland there are seniors, young people using these
services.
How
can we expect municipalities that are struggling in rural Newfoundland to
come with more money to keep a service that all their residents want?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I find this
kind of odd, the fear mongering with the municipalities. Mr. Speaker, fear
mongering with the municipalities, giving them some impression that we're
going to force them to take on an extra load. This is consultation.
I
noticed the Member, Mr. Speaker, hasn't talked about the $350 million extra
for capital works that is going to be in municipalities. He hasn't talked
about the funding ratio that stayed in place. He hasn't talked about how
many municipalities the president of MNL is thanking the government for
all the work they've done because rural Newfoundland is going to be stronger
with all the money that's going to be put into water and sewer through
capital works, through infrastructure. You haven't mentioned anything like
that because all he wants to do is fear monger.
Shame on the Member, I say, Mr. Speaker. Let us have the consultation with
the Members. Let us have a consultation with the councils. Let's sit down
and let's all work together. Let's not be heavy handed like the previous
government did with many municipalities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in an April 9 interview the Minister of Finance stated: every
decision we make will impact somebody somewhere and probably not in a good
way. There are many people who would like to learn the true impacts on the
Liberal's tax and fee hikes on our bottom line
I'll
say to the minister: Why not develop an online calculator where people of
all incomes could determine how the budget impacts them including all taxes,
fees and the Liberal levy?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the government announced the new online calculator for low-income
residents, which is a user-friendly way for determining the approximate
benefit that those low-income seniors would receive as part of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Income and enhanced Seniors' Benefit that we
announced in Budget 2016; $63.7 million in the new Income Supplement and
$12.7 million in the enhanced Seniors' Benefit.
The
tool we launched yesterday will help those low-income residents estimate how
much money they will receive quarterly. In addition, online we have also
posted how the supplement and the Seniors' Benefit will be paid, and we've
also posted information about the temporary deficit levy.
I
look forward to another question, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
really happy the minister has started this because the tool, the so-called
tool, is supposed to help people she led us to believe to figure out
whether they were going to be losing or gaining. Well, Mr. Speaker, it does
nothing of the sort. All they can figure out is whether or not they're
eligible and how much they're going to get.
So I
ask the Premier: Where in the calculation do we find the full impact of all
the tax and fee changes contained in Budget 2016?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
look forward to providing the remainder of the answer that I was providing
the Member earlier.
Also
available online is the information about how the supplement and the
Seniors' Benefit will be paid, as well as the information about the
temporary Deficit Reduction Levy. Including the total increases in taxes
payable, outlined in taxable income ranges, as well as the technical
information about how the levy will be collected.
As
I've said in this House repeatedly since the budget, the new quarterly
Income Supplement helps the most vulnerable people in our province by
providing very good supportive measures to soften the impact of the tax
changes on lower income earners.
Mr.
Speaker, I have begged the Opposition to come for briefings, maybe they'll
do it now.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
One of my constituents
said today in an email: I'd tell the minister, I know how to read and I can
figure it out for myself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, we know how
to read and we have figured it out and we've done the math.
I
ask the Premier, why he and his government are refusing to be open and
transparent about the total cost of Budget 2016 on middle- to low-income
people and seniors.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To
the Member opposite with the question, one thing I would like to ask and
get some more information from her and the people that she is talking to.
Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that she refuses to use the word, temporary? She
never uses the word temporary. As a matter of fact, all we've heard in
this House for the last 2 ½ weeks is about the impact. We have mentioned
this as well.
The
Member opposite always refuses to talk about the Income Support measures
that we have put in place. We've put some of this information online. We're
working. It is complex, as you know, because you have to know where the
individuals are, where the family would be in terms of the tax tables and
tax calculations that impact it.
I
ask the Members, all Members in this House, when you're having the
discussion, when you're having the dialogue with your constituents, let them
know what other options are available for them as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When
the minister guaranteed me last week she would put up an online tool so
people could get the real facts on how the budget would affect them, I
believed her. I thought, great, but her calculator doesn't tell the whole
truth. Working families are in shock from how hard they are getting hit by
her budget.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Will she put up a real online tool that shows
the real facts of budget impacts of the extra fees, taxes, cuts and her levy
on her working people, a real calculator with the real facts?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the
information we have posted on the Finance website and the government website
provides all of the details. I can assure the people of this House that the
31 Members on this side, I'm sure like the Members opposite, are answering
questions from their constituents on a daily basis.
It
would be certainly helpful if the Members opposite would agree and agree
to sit down and have a discussion so they can have the same information for
their constituents that our Members on this side have for theirs. If the
Member opposite would like to do that, I can make that arrangement this
afternoon.
I
can assure the Member opposite that the circumstances in our province today
require very difficult choices. We know these are difficult for the people
of the province, Mr. Speaker. We understand that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, when I said
this budget was hurting poor people in my district, the minister said I was
fear mongering. That's their favourite word this week. The facts are the
facts; a person earning $25,000, even with the Income Supplement will be
almost a thousand dollars in the hole with all the extra fees, taxes, losses
and the levy.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Why is she denying how
this budget hurts the working poor?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
remind the House that this is going to work both ways. I'm going to reset
the clock for the Member for St. John's Centre. I'm asking for order.
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, last week
when I said this budget was hurting poor people in my district, the minister
said I was fear mongering, but the facts are the facts. A person earning
$25,000 even with the Income Supplement will be almost $1,000 in the
hole with all the extra fees, taxes, losses and the levy.
I
ask the minister: Why is she denying how this budget hurts the working poor?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the
Member opposite also heard in this House last week a Member from the
Opposition say that somebody was going to pay an extra $1,000 on tax related
to insurance.
Mr.
Speaker, in the context of that, that individual the Member opposite would
have referred to would have had to own a $500,000 house, a boat, a car and
an RV.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member opposite just threw out an example of $26,000. I would
implore her to meet with Finance officials to understand the details between
taxable income and non-taxable income so we can get the accurate information
into the hands of her constituents, as well as the constituents on this side
of the House, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question
Period has expired.
MS. ROGERS:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Yesterday, in the House during Question Period, the Member for St. John's
Centre asked this particular question. She wanted to know, I quote: Mr.
Speaker, the minister has put $20 million into a special pot of funding to
dole out instead of keeping much needed libraries, schools and dialysis
units open. She asked: Is the $20 million a slush fund for the Minister of
Finance to do as she sees fit?
Mr.
Speaker, I am here to table today the background information for that line
item in the Estimates. As this document will show, this $20 million was for
federal infrastructure initiatives, to leverage federal infrastructure
initiatives that will be used to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador has
the ability to access new federal funding such as the social infrastructure
programs announced in the federal budget in 2016-17.
Program details are now being provided by the federal government in several
areas, such as the new federal program for post-secondary infrastructure
through the new federal strategic infrastructure fund, and details of the
new clean water wastewater program.
Mr.
Speaker, I would argue those are not slush fund items and I resent the fact
that that was the way the Member yesterday posed her question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of
documents?
Pursuant to section 8 and section 10 of the
Public Tender Act, I hereby table
the report of the Public Tender Act exemptions for March 2016, as presented by the
chief operating officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It
must be my younger legs, Mr. Speaker; that's all I can say.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly
sheweth:
WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax,
placing a higher tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and
WHEREAS surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only as
currently demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and
other countries; and
WHEREAS government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal
income tax schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction
Levy be eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive
taxation principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and
Labrador provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I am happy once again to bring this petition forward. The one I
have in my hand today includes people from St. John's, from Portugal Cove,
from Gambo quite a number from Gambo from Mount Pearl, Hare Bay and they
keep coming in. People are concerned all over the province. I wish this
government would listen to what people are saying, get rid of this levy
which is going to be a real burden on people and let people focus on the
real issues that need to be focused on.
People continue to send in their reactions to us and I have in my hands
today an email from a 69-year-old retired woman saying: Thank you for
absolutely nothing. She is talking about the levy, the head tax she's
calling it. I planned my retirement so that I would have no outstanding
bills and to have my senior years affordable nothing fancy no big house;
no big SUV gas-guzzler; I'm not interested in travelling (did that years
ago). I just wanted some peace after working 47 years. You've taken that
away. So I'm thinking the best thing to do is to 'take myself away from this
hole' that's her word and the shortmindedness of governments here
.
Mr.
Speaker, these are the strong words that we're getting from people all over
the province, the people who are signing this petition, the people who know
what the impact on them is going to be; senior citizens, retirees like this
woman who lives from month to month on fixed income. They plan their budgets
very, very closely, as this woman said. She did her travelling when she was
making money. I will be happy to bring their voice continually to the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mount Pearl North, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mount Pearl North, my
fault.
MR. KENT:
Thank you.
I am
rising to raise a petition on behalf of residents of St. John's and Mount
Pearl, actually, today. This petition is signed by residents of St. John's.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS an extension is urgently needed at St. Peter's Primary school in
Mount Pearl in order to accommodate full-day kindergarten and the growing
school population;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to clarify its position and plan so
that St. Peter's Primary and other schools in Newfoundland and Labrador can
properly accommodate students when full-day kindergarten commences in
September 2016.
And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm glad to have an opportunity to raise concerns on behalf of
parents and families of St. Peter's Primary, both in St. John's and Mount
Pearl once again. I'm pleased to say that recently I did have some
discussions with officials from the English School District, and was able to
express a number of concerns and make some constructive suggestions on
behalf of parents and others in the community as well.
Despite the fact our extension won't be ready for this fall or even next
fall it will be ready for September 2018, I'm assured there are things
we can do to make the best of a bad situation over the next couple of years.
That's what I'm calling upon on behalf of my constituents, calling upon
government and the school district to do just that.
For
instance, we have a situation currently, but this September it gets even
worse. We have an overcrowded school in Mount Pearl significantly
overcrowded where there's going to be a couple of modular classrooms
added, there's going to be four classes where team teaching is taking place,
yet down the road at Mary Queen of the World School also in Mount Pearl
there will be six empty classrooms in September six empty classrooms.
So
yes, it will cause some disruption, yes, there is a downside to forcing
students and families to move and staff to move, but it's unacceptable that
we're going to have an overcrowded building with modular classrooms and team
teaching while down the road we have a building with six empty classrooms as
of September. Both great schools, both with great administration and staff,
and I believe there is a solution here, Mr. Speaker.
One
suggestion that has been endorsed by many parents is creating a French
immersion stream at Mary Queen of the World. It would deal with some of the
overcapacity issues at St. Peter's Primary, it would fully utilize that
space that's available, and it would take some of the pressure off St.
Peter's Primary at the same time.
So I
think that's one viable suggestion. If the department or the school district
has other suggestions about how to make use of this space and address the
overcrowding and space issues at St. Peter's, then we would welcome those as
well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly
sheweth:
WHEREAS a Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax, placing
a higher tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and
WHEREAS surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only as
currently demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and
other countries; and
WHEREAS government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal
income tax schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to ensure the Deficit Reduction Levy be
eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation
principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador
provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, the petitions are coming in the office daily and they're coming
from all over the province. People are hurting. This budget is hurting
working people. Some people, of course, many of us can tighten our belts a
little bit and do something about the current fiscal situation we are in,
but for some people the budget is actually hurting them. They do not have
any notches left in their belt to tighten.
The
minister keeps talking about her Income Supplement the Income Supplement
is a good idea, Mr. Speaker, but what she needs to do is she needs to look
at the LICO. She needs to look at the Low Income Cut-Off, how many people
I don't know if she's even realized how many people she's actually pushing
into poverty by the regressive nature of the budget and the regressive
nature of the taxes that she's done.
Instead, she should be looking at, at this time, how we can lift people out
of poverty. Somebody had said this doesn't just hurt people who are falling
between the cracks; this is actually pushing them down in between the
cracks. The facts are the facts.
I'm
sure the minister didn't intend to do this. I'm sure government didn't
intend to put such a heavy burden on the working poor and on poor people,
but with the increase in HST, the increase in the gas taxes, the levy, also
losing the Home Heating Rebate, losing the provincial portion of your HST
rebate, the load is too heavy. It is unfair; it is unequitable.
I
believe government didn't intend to do this, but they have done it and they
have to stop and look at the facts. They have to stop and look at the real
impact on people's lives across the province because the impact is dire and
the resistance to it is growing. It's not going to go away.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
an honour to stand in this House and present a petition that I received in
my office.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Budget 2016 closed the Advanced Education and Skills office in
Bonavista; and
WHEREAS the residents of Bonavista and surrounding communities require and
deserve an appropriate level of service;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to reconsider its decision to close the
Bonavista Advanced Education and Skills office.
And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of sheets here signed by people from various
communities in the surrounding area that the Bonavista office served, from
Catalina, Little Catalina, Bonavista and the other communities around that.
Daily, we're getting petitions in from various communities, particularly
around the services that have been cut. The AES office is one that is near
and dear to people's hearts because it offers a multitude of services for
people, particularly in rural communities. It offers something that is a
hand up versus a handout, Mr. Speaker. I mean, we're talking about
employment programs. We're talking about being the focal point for people
who may want to look at the employment skillset that they may need.
They
may want to look at what jobs are out there. How do they access those?
That's what our AES offices were very capable of doing. Making that
connection, providing the services that people needed.
I
had the privilege for 25 years of working in the AES system. I know all
around the province the benefits they provide to their citizens. They're
unique, but at the same time they're uniform. That everybody in this
province has access to proper services.
We
talked about employment, but we talked about education. We talked about
Adult Basic Education. How people who sometimes are reliant on offices like
that may need some additional supports and some additional guidance. The ABE
program was a key one that partnered with the AES offices. The employment
counsellors there, the intake officers, had a direct connection with the
community based ABE programs or the college based ones over the years.
Income Support; people who are reliant when they have no other form of
income, Income Support is a key component for their survival. It's very
important. There are all kinds of nuances and all kinds of processes to go
through to ensure you get what's adequate enough for your survival and to
make sure you do it in an equitable way. If you happen to be able to move
forward, you have a process to tell the officers that you've made a step
forward, you're no longer in need of Income Support. So that down the road
you don't get hit with this bill because unbeknownst, money kept going into
your account.
We
talked about housing. In a lot of these communities Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing doesn't have an office. So the AES office is that link
between affordable housing and, particularly, subsidized housing in some of
these communities. It's a very important service that was being offered to
the people through the AES offices. All eight have similar programs and
skillsets by the trained employees who could offer that to individuals.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
There are a multitude of
services they offer in the communities, Mr. Speaker.
I
want to conclude by saying, every day I will get up and talk about the
closure of AES and encourage government to reconsider.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
I call from the Order
Paper, Order 6, second reading of Bill 24.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 24, An Act Respecting
Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The Province, be now read a second
time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded
that Bill 24, An Act Respecting Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The
Province, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Insured Medical And
Hospital Services In The Province. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
By
way of background, the payment of medical and hospital services in this
province is currently governed by two pieces of statute and by two separate
plans.
The
first of these is the Medical Care Plan, which covers services provided by
physicians and dentists, is governed under the hospices of the
Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999. The second, the Hospital Insurance
Plan, which covers those services provided in a hospital is set out in the
Hospital Insurance Agreement Act.
These acts have been in place for almost 50 years. While these acts have
been amended occasionally over the years, these have been mostly of a
housekeeping nature.
It's
time to modernize this legislation to ensure it complies with the principles
of the Canada Health Act, which in
actual fact, both of these old statutes predate. The new legislation is also
required to strengthen financial accountability of those who provide and
receive medical and hospital services funded by the province.
Since the inception of medicare in our country and province the world has
changed greatly. Travel between provinces and countries have become easier
and more accessible. People are generally more mobile. They travel between
provinces and countries to work and vacation, and they also travel to seek
medical treatment.
The
province's legislation needs to keep pace with that reality and the reality
that our world is a smaller place. It's time to adopt new legislation which
meets the current needs of the beneficiaries who are eligible for coverage
and who require medical or hospital-insured services, the physicians and
dentists who provide those services and finally, the province, which is the
primary funder of medical and hospital services.
To
highlight the key changes, this single new
Medical Care and Hospital Insurance
Act will cover both medical care and hospital insurance plans. It
contains a number of changes which I'll reference now. The first and most
obvious is the change from two acts to one. The current
Hospital Insurance Agreement Act
contains six sections with two of those sections being identical to sections
in the current Medical Care Insurance
Act, 1999.
Upon
review, it was felt, given the similarities in acts, two separate acts were
not necessary and that the eligibility for hospital services could be
adequately covered in the same act that also addressed eligibility and
payment for medical services. It is important for both beneficiaries and
practitioners that the rules regarding payment by the province for medical
and hospital services are clearly set out. One act will help achieve that
objective.
The
second issue and changes speak to confidentiality of information. While
there continues to be a general requirement to maintain confidentiality of
information gathered under the new act, there are a number of exceptions
including the authority to release demographic information only to the
director of Support Enforcement in the Department of Justice and Public
Safety. There have been issues where people have vanished from the
jurisdictions of both of those and yet obviously continue to maintain active
registration with the Medical Care Plan. That has produced some challenges
for law enforcement and Support Enforcement.
Under the Confidentiality of Information, the authority in the act will
allow MCP data also to be accessed to obtain a recent address for those
individuals who have either unpaid amounts owing on child and spousal
support. Personal health information of these debtors however will not be
disclosed.
The
third issue that is readdressed or newly addressed is the phenomena of extra
billing. The act prohibits medical and dental practitioners from both opting
out of MCP and billing their patients over and above the rates set out in
the MCP payment schedule.
One
of the pillars of medicare is that insurance services ought to be provided
to beneficiaries free of charge. The prohibition on extra billing will
ensure that patients will not have to personally pay for those medical
services that are covered under MCP. For those who are not familiar, extra
billing is a practice whereby a practitioner who has opted out would
normally bill the patient directly rather than the health care plan. The
problem with that is some practitioners have actually billed an amount
greater than that is possible to be claimed back from the province under the
plan and the patients have been left out of pocket.
This
prohibition on extra billing is actually consistent with prohibition set out
in federal legislation in the Canada Health Act. The federal government can,
and has in the past, directly reduce federal transfers to the provincial
Treasury as a penalty for each extra billing. Dollar for dollar, the federal
government can remove from the health transfer any money that is charged
directly to the patient for an insured service, and they have done in the
past.
The
prohibition on extra billing is simply the right thing to do. The principle
of medicare is that it should be free of charge to the beneficiaries. It
protects patients from paying for insurance services and it also protects us
from federal claw backs under the Canada Health Act.
With
regard to financial accountability, there is specification in the act for a
90-day limitation period. The new act sets out the time limit in which
practitioners are to submit their billings to MCP for payments. There is an
ability to extend this time limit where circumstances warrant, such as where
billings are delayed due to technical issues, staff illnesses, or delays in
obtaining patient information.
The
time limit isn't actually new. It actually exists already but it's in the
form of regulations and precedent. This change will actually enshrine in
legislation the 90-day limitation period. It would entrench it with the
force of law.
It's
important that practitioners submit their billings in a timely manner for a
variety of reasons. Not only is it good business practice for the physician
or dentist, because they can't get paid without submitting an account, it's
important that the information submitted be as accurate as possible to avoid
delays in payment or issues that could be raised in an audit. The accuracy
of the information is more likely if the account is submitted within a short
time frame from when the service was provided, rather than a longer one.
The
act also makes specific reference to the issue of third-party liability.
Under the current legislation, the Minister of Health and Community Services
has a right to recover the cost of providing medical and hospital services
to beneficiaries who are injured by a third party. Again, some of this is
enshrined in the previous legislation; other is scattered through
regulations drafted under that old legislation.
Such
injuries, for example, would occur possibly from falls, the use of defective
products, or motor vehicle accidents that occur outside of the province.
Currently in our province, as is the case in most provinces, if a
beneficiary is injured in a motor vehicle accident in the province, there is
no requirement for the beneficiary to recover the cost of medical or
hospital services received as a result.
In
1994, the MCP legislation was amended to set out an arrangement with
insurance companies in lieu of paying the cost of medical and hospital
services in each personal injury case, simply paid a fixed amount to the
Treasury on a quarterly basis. This was derived on an actuarial basis from
indices that the insurance companies have of their likely exposure to that
risk in any given period and was adjusted from year to year.
This
bill does not propose to make any substantive change to that arrangement. It
does, however, clarify that the minister has the authority to recover costs
in circumstances where the arrangement with insurance companies as set out
in the legislation actually doesn't apply; for example, where a beneficiary
is injured in a motor vehicle accident outside of the province.
What
the new Medical Care and Hospital
Insurance Act does is clarify the minister's ability to recover the
current and future costs of providing medical and hospital services to
beneficiaries injured by a third party. That doesn't exist in current
legislation. For someone who has an accident while on vacation in another
province and litigation may take place, it puts the province in a difficult
situation of being able to recover future costs that will incur to the
medical care plan.
Whilst this may not be common, there may be occasion where a beneficiary,
due to the nature of the injury sustained, may require such future services.
Bill 24 requires the beneficiary to seek recovery of the cost of those
future services, should a personal injury claim for damages be commenced. So
this is a legal enforcement, if you like, or injunction on those suing for
personal injuries that the province's interest for future costs be
safeguarded.
The
final chunk is a piece around audit. The MCP program currently has a budget
slightly in excess of $480 million. There is pressure on us, as we've heard
in Question Period and in the budget, and on other occasions, to be good
stewards of the public Treasury. Particularly in a time of fiscal restraint,
we have to ensure that the funds budgeted are indeed paid out in accordance
with the appropriate rules and applicable rules. You need a robust audit
regime to achieve this objective.
The
new act clearly sets out the process by which practitioners billings are to
be audited, as well as the powers of auditors in conducting those audits.
Because there has been nothing put in legislation, because this legislation
actually predates Medicare, there have been occasions where there have been,
if you like, loopholes through which lawsuits and argumentation could be
provided to reduce or constrain the department's ability to both audit and
make recoveries under those audits. So this act clearly sets out the process
so that everyone knows upfront what's expected
There is a significant enhancement to the authority to recover overpayments
and the ability for the Minister of Health to file with the court a signed
order so that order would then become enforceable as an order of the court,
rather than legal proceedings having to be instituted as of present for each
of those occasions where overpayments have been made.
We
recognize that there will be some significant changes as set out in this act
if adopted and, as such, we are proposing that Bill 24 would not come into
force until October 1, 2016. This delay in proclamation would provide all of
the stakeholders, such organizations as the Newfoundland and Labrador
Medical Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Dental Association,
with sufficient advance notice before they come into effect so their members
could be apprised of these changes.
In
conclusion, Mr. Speaker I don't need anywhere near the allotted time
this is a legislative regime currently governing MCP which has not really
changed in 50 years, despite the introduction of the
Canada Health Act. We have not
made significant alterations to the way practices are currently in place.
What we have done is identified areas of loophole, if you like, or potential
slackness in the process and tightened them up.
This
new legislation to address these changes is really long overdue. This bill
is our response to the changes that we've seen in the delivery and funding
of health care locally and across the continent. I would ask that all
Members of this hon. House join me in supporting this bill.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Lane):
The Speaker
recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail Paradise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
somewhat of a pleasure to have a different topic to discuss today, off the
budget for a little while, on Bill 24. I'm not sure how much time we'll
spend on Bill 24 today, but it's always good to talk about and have an
opportunity to debate other matters that are on government's plate and
priorities, and matters that come before the House for us to debate and
discuss. That's what we do here. When a new bill or a new proposed piece of
legislation comes to the House, then it goes through this process.
About a week or so ago I had the opportunity to attend over at the
department. I extend my thanks and appreciation to the officials in the
minister's department who were quite cordial and helpful as they pretty much
always are. In this case it was no different. They were very helpful in
going through the bill.
It
is a fairly lengthy bill, relative to many we see come here in the House.
There are about 63, 64 sections in total, including administrative ones.
There are times we come to the House when we have three or four sections in
a bill or amendment and they're quite small. Similar to what we just saw
with the minister who in about 14 or 15 minutes really summed up the bill in
total, I don't anticipate I'm going to need any longer than that to bring my
remarks forward this afternoon, even though it's a very important bill. It's
an important piece of legislation and it does have 60 sections.
Essentially, this bill is a combination of two acts as laid out two
existing pieces of legislation as laid out by the minister: the
Medical Care Insurance Act and the
Hospital Insurance Agreement Act. Essentially MCP, as many people
know it, and also how hospital services are insured. I know this piece of
legislation will benefit those who work within it.
Quite often our health authorities or people who work and are guided by this
legislation will be looking back and forth to which piece of legislation
applies here, with currently having two separate pieces of legislation. This
will streamline it I'm sure. It also clarifies some of those contentious
points that sometimes happen when it comes to medical care as guided by
these legislations.
There are a couple of changes that are being made in this act under this
bill. One of them is very close to the front under section 4. It deals with
confidentiality. The minister referenced this as well, and there is a new
section in confidentiality. Currently when it comes to the confidentiality
of information, of course it has to be highly protected. People have to have
an assurance that when they're dealing with health care matters they are
protected, that their privacy and confidentiality is protected.
What
is proposed here, of course, is it allows A person employed in the
administration of this Act shall maintain confidentiality with respect to
all matters that come to
their attention or knowledge in the course of
their employment and they shall not communicate the matters to another
person, including an employee of the government. Then it says, except. There
are a number of exceptions to this, and that's to a person to whom an
insured service is provided
.
If a
person wants to go the hospital and wants to learn about their own file,
they have a right to do that, to a practitioner for a purpose relating to
insured services
. If you go to a hospital or you go to a health care
facility and you require services, it is quite often important for those
providing the health care to you, their health care service to you, to
understand your past, your background and so on. In a case like that, then
they should have full access to your medical history.
So,
to a professional corporation and its directors, officers and employees for
a purpose relating to insured services that were provided through the
corporation. Such as a health corporation, one of our health regions.
Also, for consultation, for the purpose of consultation between the
minister and the medical association or the dental association. Of course,
people's personal information would always be protected but there are times
when the minister who is making decisions in the best interest of the people
of the province and health care requires certain statistical data,
information and so on. It would give him the access to that, and
professional and regulatory boards.
Also, to a police officer or a peace officer as it's termed in the
legislation, to a peace officer for the purpose of reporting a suspected
offence. Then there are a couple of others, to a person who is empowered
by a statute which requires disclosure
and so on.
There's a new one here under section 4(f), which is to a person employed by
the government to enforce support orders under the
Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006. So that's a director of
Support Enforcement. We know the director of Support Enforcement and their
team are engaged on a regular basis in ensuring that family court orders are
upheld and ensure they take place.
It
makes a lot of sense to do this, where a person has an obligation directed
by an authority not living up to that obligation and they avail of or access
health care which could assist the director of Support Enforcement. We know
from our own history that sometimes Support Enforcement has a really
difficult and challenging time, quite often under very difficult and
challenging circumstances, to ensure that orders are maintained and upheld
has they've been directed and intended to. This will assist them in doing
that role.
There is a section here under extra billing. Again, the minister articulated
and referenced that particular section as well. He talked about where
sometimes there are extra billings, and also discussed the opt-out
opportunities for practitioners. I think he's clarified that one
sufficiently. I don't need to go over that one.
One
that is new to both the current legislation, and currently found in
regulation, is under section 10 where it says, A participating practitioner
shall submit an account for an insured service no later than 90 days after
the practitioner provides the insured service. (2) A beneficiary the
patient shall submit an account no later than 2 years after the insured
service is provided to him or her. That's tightening up processes to make
sure that the management of processes and billings and accounts happens
appropriately.
There is a section on audits and how they take place to make sure that
services are being provided, charged and billed correctly. We've heard
stories and suggestions in the past of certain circumstances where that may
have not been taking place as intended. It's appropriate to have an audit
process, especially when there's such a high value, high amount of money,
high amount of cost and it is important of our service to the people of the
province who we are involved with here to make sure that it is being done
properly.
Under section 29, there is a new section when it comes to audits and
payments under Part IV. It indicates that a minister may make a written
order after reviewing audit findings and so on. That currently exists. In
order for that to take place, the minister may do one or more of the
following things. One of the things he may do which are new is where the
minister makes an order under this section, also order that all or part of
the order, referring to overpayments, and interest being deducted from an
amount payable to the practitioner. If there's an audit and it determines
that there has been an overpayment, then it gives the minister the authority
to collect that overpayment to order it and to collect it.
As
well, under this same part of the new legislation or the new bill, the
minister can make an order when a party doesn't appear. Parties aren't
required to appear. I understand there's been difficulty with that in the
past when parties haven't appeared to audit processes and audit hearings.
Sometimes it can leave that process in limbo. Under this case, there's a
section that's tightening that up which allows for the minister to make an
order, even if the person doesn't appear through the audit process as
required. It does tighten it up, so it'll make the system move more
effectively and be more meaningful.
Mr.
Speaker, there's a section on levy and then there's a section on recovery of
costs for services. This is not entirely new, but a part of this is. What
this section refers to and I won't read it all paragraph by paragraph
essentially is that when there's a civil action, a person becomes injured
through a matter that results in an action of liability that takes place.
For
example, in the example used by the officials in the department, they'll say
a person had a slip and fall on private property. If that slip and fall
results in the person taking action against the landlord or property owner,
then this will require that the health care costs for that person be
included as part of that action. Instead of the taxpayers of Newfoundland
and Labrador having to bear the burden of paying for the cost of health care
required to someone, in this case the example used here was slip and fall,
or because of an incident that occurred where there's a court action or a
lawsuit filed, then this section will require that lawsuit also require the
person to sue for the cost for the health care.
This
is a new section in this bill and I think it's an important one. I know that
from my own experiences there's a significant amount of cost borne by the
province, borne by the taxpayers whereby a person has a slip and fall, an
injury, or a requirement for health care where there's been an action, a
lawsuit taken as a result of what led to that injury.
When
the injured party sues the responsible party such as the property owner, as
I mentioned, then this section will require that appellant to include the
cost of the insurance services in their lawsuit. This will change that and,
of course, that will reduce the cost to the taxpayers of the province.
Automobiles are in this section as well, but it also includes only where
motor vehicle accidents in which the person who is determined or deemed to
be negligent is not covered by a policy. In a case like that, with a civil
matter as well, then the collection can occur under those circumstances.
Mr.
Speaker, there is regulation-making authority under this piece of
legislation. It is interesting to note that I perceive there's a change on
the regulation authority giving the minister a greater and broader, stronger
regulatory regulation-making authority than what exists today. I don't
believe that's a bad thing. I believe it's a good thing. I believe it gives
government more flexibility. It gives government greater flexibility to
create regulation. Then regulations quite often have to be adopted and
changed as services and processes change with the times.
As
new processes are developed, new practices are developed, new best practice
is learned and processes change then to give the government greater
regulatory regulation-making authority I believe in this bill, under this
legislation, will benefit the province, it will benefit the minister and, as
a result, will benefit health care and the services, the back off of
services that happen through health care. That's really what this
legislation is about.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to take my place. Again, I just want to confirm our
support for this bill. I believe it is going to streamline and benefit
health care. It's going to reduce the administrative burden. It's going to
tighten up auditing functions as well. It gives the minister greater
authority to make improvements and find greater efficiencies in health care.
Again, I thank the officials in the department for the briefing and
broadening our understanding of the contents of the bill. I thank the
minister for introducing it.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes
the hon. Member for the District of Virginia Waters Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to see that my colleague across the House seems to be in full support
of this new amended bill.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. B. DAVIS:
Excellent.
Bill
24 is An Act Respecting Insured Medical and Hospital Services in the
Province and we have it divided into eight parts that I'm going to discuss
here today.
Part
I sets out the rights of the beneficiary and practitioners, meaning
physicians and dentists, with respect to the provision and receipt of
medical and hospital services. It also requires that information collected
under this act is kept confidential. The exceptions to this requirement are
explicitly set out and I'm just going to go through some of those
exceptions.
One
of the exceptions that I wish to highlight is the authority to release
information to the director of Support Enforcement. The director is
responsible for enforcing child and spousal support orders. In some cases,
monies may not be collected under these orders because a person owing the
money cannot be located. If the debtor is residing in Newfoundland and
Labrador, then the director will be able to access the debtor's address,
physical address, through MCP data which will help them locate the person
and assist in the collecting of these monies which are primarily owed to
women and children under the support orders.
One
interesting note I would like to address is the MCP keeps physical
addresses, not just mailing addresses and it's important for people that are
being summoned so that they can be located so that these orders can be paid
and at least reached out to. It is important to note that the personal
health information of the debtors will not be released under these
exceptions.
Part
II continues both the Medical Care Plan, or the MCP, which applies to
services provided by physicians and dentists and the hospital insurance
plan, which applies to hospital services.
Part
III sets out the rules regarding the submission of accounts by practitioners
and the manner in which those accounts are to be paid. It requires
practitioners who wish to bill MCP directly for services provided to be
enrolled in the program. In practice, practitioners complete an application
form and then are provided a number which allows them to bill MCP directly.
This process will not change under Bill 24.
It
also requires practitioners to notify the Minister of Health and Community
Services should they wish to opt out of the MCP and bill beneficiaries
directly. As the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services mentioned
before, this is possible. In this case, the beneficiary pays the
practitioner and then is reimbursed directly by MCP.
Bill
24 prohibits extra billing by the practitioner who provides insured services
to the beneficiaries, whether the practitioner is enrolled in the program or
not. That's a change in the previous bill.
Even
where a practitioner opts out of MCP and elects to bill the patients
directly, the practitioner cannot bill the patient over and above any amount
that MCP will be reimbursing the patient. Extra billing is an offence under
this act, subject to the fine of $20,000 for each offence.
Part
IV is simply entitled Audits. It sets out the powers and the authority to
conduct audits on practitioner's billings. This bill permits the audit of
all practitioners who provide medical services through MCP, whether they opt
in or opt out of the MCP.
It
sets out the audit process and the manner in which disputes and audit
findings are resolved and adjudicated. It permits the Minister of Health and
Community Services to make various orders for the recovery where an
overpayment has been identified following an audit.
The
minister may make an order, whether the practitioner appears at the review
board or not, provided the practitioner has been given sufficient notice of
the review board hearing. The minister may order, for example, that the
amount of the overpayment be deducted from the practitioner's future
billings under MCP. Interest shall also be recovered. Once the minister
makes an order, the order may be filed with the court at which time it
becomes an order of the court and may be enforced as such. It also permits
the appeal of the minister's order to the court.
Part
V sets out the regime by which the insurance companies pay the Minister of
Health and Community Services quarterly amounts which represents the cost of
medical and hospital services provided to beneficiaries where they have been
injured in a motor vehicle accident. Under this part, there is no
requirement for the injured party to recover the amounts of the medical and
hospital services incurred by MCP. There are no substantive changes proposed
to Bill 24 to this particular regime.
Mr.
Speaker, Part VI is the Recovery of Costs for Services. It applies where a
beneficiary suffers injury during the negligence, act or omission of a third
party. It also applies where the beneficiary is injured in a motor vehicle
accident to which Part V of the act does not apply. This may be the case,
for example, when a beneficiary is injured in a motor vehicle accident in
another province, but receives medical or hospital services in this
province.
By
accordance with this part, where a beneficiary makes a personal injury claim
to recover damages suffered, he or she is also required to make a claim for
the amount of the insured services received under the MCP and/or the
hospital insurance plan related to the injury sustained.
Mr.
Speaker, where a beneficiary has received medical or hospital services
related to an injury, he or she is not permitted to settle the personal
injury claim without the consent of the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
Part
VII contains general provisions relating to the ability to make regulations
under the act and to create offences for the failure to comply with the act.
For example, regulations may be made to establish a formal procedure for
reviewing decisions made under the act.
Regulations may be also made to prescribing agency fees that may be paid to
lawyers who recover the cost of a medical or hospital services on behalf of
the minister in personal injury claims. This part also offers a
contravening the act. This act is not about punishing people; however, it is
important that there be penalties in place to act as a deterrent for those
who may choose to act contrary to the act.
Part
VIII clarifies that the act will come into force on October 1, as the
minister said. This delay in proclamation will provide advance notice to all
stakeholders, including the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association
and the Newfoundland and Labrador Dental Association, of the changes to the
act. This part also sets out the transition from the current legislation to
the new Medical Care and Hospital
Insurance Act once it comes into force.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members in this House to join me in supporting Bill
24.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes
the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
quite happy to stand this afternoon to speak to Bill 24, An Act Respecting
Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The Province.
The
minister, in particular, has given a good detailed outline of what this bill
is about. I'm not going to go through it piece by piece. Anybody watching,
or in the future, anybody reading will have read what the minister has said
and what his parliamentary secretary has said, but just to make the point
that it's a new bill, but a new bill modernizing other bills that we have
had. The Medical Care and Hospital
Insurance Act will repeal the
Medical Care Insurance Act and the
Hospital Insurance Agreement Act.
We
have a new bill, modernizing some pieces that have needed to be modernized,
putting in some new pieces and making sure that our health insurance program
is modern, up to date and dealing with the issues that have been identified
over the years as needing change.
As I
said, I'm not going to go through every single piece but there are a couple
of areas that I do want to highlight. I think from the perspective of how it
impacts individuals and people who are insured in our province, the
important thing is that this act is bringing in new protections. I think
that's something people should feel good about.
I'm
sure that people have experienced that we have different groups in our
province. We have medical practitioners who are recognized, recognized by
associations and recognized by our government who choose to be part of the
MCP and according to the act, they are called participating practitioners.
Then you have medical practitioners who don't participate in the MCP, yet
they have to be regulated by our government. They are part of the health
care system, though they don't participate in the MCP.
There are provisions now in this new act, which are extremely important, to
bring protection to patients, to beneficiaries of our act. I think one of
the most important things in the act is that it puts up a wall against extra
billing. It turns out and I do want to thank actually the minister and his
staff for the briefing that our researcher received on this. She found it
one of the best briefings that she'd ever had and I want to thank the
minister and his staff. He can pass that on to them.
During that briefing, my researcher learned that extra billing had been
permitted in this province. What that means is that very often I am not
going to say very often, but there are times when practitioners who weren't
under the MCP, just practitioners, charged more to the beneficiary than MCP
would pay. The service that the beneficiary received was a service that was
covered by MCP, but he or she was going to a practitioner who did not get
paid through MCP. You had practitioners who were charging extra. In actual
fact, that is illegal under the Canada
Health Act. Other provinces have had to deal with the fact they allow
this and have had to be brought in line. I think British Columbia is one
which had to be brought in line by the
Canada Health Act.
What
would happen is a practitioner who opted out of MCP, though the practitioner
offered services that were under MCP, would bill a patient, the patient
would then have to go to MCP to get reimbursed. MCP would only pay for the
amount of money that MCP covers, the scheduled amount. So if the person had
gone to a practitioner who was under the MCP, he or she was actually paying
more to the practitioner who was outside of the system.
What
has happened now is a practitioner cannot bill a patient over and above
what's listed, over and above what is the MCP schedule. That's extremely
important. There is a whole section in the piece of legislation, section 18,
which explain the details of how physicians who opt-out are not covered by
the new act. So now they have to go receive the money from MCP and they will
be paid for what any one of the practitioners under the MCP would be paid.
The extra billing has to end. The MCP payment schedule has fee codes and
amounts for all services. That should be for everybody who's receiving those
services in the province.
New
fees and increases were actually just recently negotiated with Newfoundland
and Labrador Medical Association and the Dental Association. Both of these
associations, they are members who are part of MCP, plus practitioners who
are outside of the MCP have to follow the MCP payment schedule. I'm really
quite happy, actually, that we now have this protection in our province for
the people of the province.
Section 10 of the bill requires the registered practitioners submit a bill
to MCP for services rendered within 90 days. Now, that's not new. The
provision was taken out of the regulations and placed in the act, though,
because it was only in regulations before. It is now in the act to make it
as firm as possible. There could be exceptions if the practitioner became
ill and wasn't able to perform his or her business, but for the most part
it's now in our act that any practitioner who submits a bill to MCP for
services rendered has to do it within 90 days. I think there are penalties.
Well, they won't get the reimbursement if they don't do it within the 90
days. This is one thing that I think is extremely important.
I
also want to talk about the levy regime that's in the bill and that has been
in place in the province since 1994. Levy has been a bad word here in the
province over the last couple of weeks, but this levy is different. This is
a levy that has to do it's an arrangement between government and auto
insurers in which they make quarterly payments to MCP based on the number of
vehicles insured during that quarter, instead of each company making
payments on a case-by-case basis for expenses MCP has incurred providing
services to someone injured in an accident who sues the driver at fault.
In
other words, it cuts down on red tape. Instead of each insurance company
every time there's an accident whereby somebody in the accident can get MCP,
instead of having to submit that every time there's an expense, they pay a
levy to MCP.
This
is also quite important that this is continued and that it is in our new
act. We had an old piece of legislation with regard to the levy, so it has
been modernized in the act. It has strengthened and updated the levy re:
third party liability, which is really important, and clearly set out the
eligibility rules. It also has clarified the physicians and oral surgeons'
bill submission process, or the process they go through. There had been some
lack of clarity and that has now been clarified.
I
think one of the things I should mention also, to put people's mind at rest,
is the whole thing of the audit of practitioners. It's extremely important
that auditing takes place. There is a whole section in the bill on auditing.
I know the minister has spoken to it, as has the other speaker from the
government side.
I
think the important thing for people to know is that there's a very solid
system in place for practitioners to be audited. If an audit is done and the
practitioner feels they haven't been fairly treated, there will be a review
board to make sure they are treated fairly.
It's
interesting that, An auditor performing an audit may at reasonable times
and for reasonable purposes of the audit, (a) without a warrant, enter and
inspect premises where insured services are provided or where documentation
required for the purpose of this Act is stored.
The
auditor has been given some significant powers, which I think is very
important. I note that even though without a warrant they may enter and
inspect premises where there are insured services carried out, they may not
enter a dwelling-house without the consent of the occupant except under the
authority of a warrant. So, there's also protection there for the
practitioners. Even though the auditors have a lot of power, there also has
to be protection for the practitioner.
As I
mentioned, there is the provision as well that there be a review board put
in place if a practitioner does request a review because they don't think
what has been done has fairly represented who they are.
There's an issue I have a little concern about, and I'm asking the minister
to give us some clarity on it. The issue has to do with it's under section
4. Section 4 deals with confidentiality.
Section 4(1) says, A person employed in the administration of this Act
shall maintain confidentiality with respect to all matters that come to his
or her knowledge in the course of that person's employment and shall not
communicate the matters to another person, including an employee of the
government, except
. Then there are a number of exceptions.
We
are wondering, there's one exception in particular, section (f). The
exception and it was added with this bill; it wasn't in the former acts
has to do with allowing the sharing of information with the support orders
division of justice. The support orders division of justice doesn't have
anything to do with our medical system. So I'm wondering why this is the
case. It turns out that the Attorney General did ask for this as the best
way to get an up-to-date address for someone who the Department of Justice
or the legal system is looking for.
So
the Attorney General has asked to be able to access addresses and there will
be no personal health information shared. We were assured in the briefing
that MCP would make sure of that. But I do have a concern because we have
had privacy breaches inside of our health care system. One has to wonder why
would it be MCP that Justice would go to, to find people's addresses. I'm
sure there's rationale for it, but officials in the briefing weren't sure if
other provinces had this particular provision. So I'd like to know and
maybe Justice is the one who has to give us this answer, not the Minister of
Health, but surely there are other ways in which the Department of Justice
and the legal system can find up-to-date addresses than through the MCP.
I
can understand it's an easy way to get it. It easy access, but I really do
fear the possibility of privacy breaches. All the other groups who are
listed also (h) concerns me because it's to a peace officer for the
purpose of reporting a suspected offence. I suspect that's connected to the
same reasoning around the Support
Orders Enforcement Act. Neither one of those connect directly with
health issues.
Everybody else who is mentioned as an exception is somebody who has a
connection to the act: (a) to a person to whom an insured service is
provided about that insured service, that's understandable; (b) to a
practitioner for a purpose relating to insured services that the
practitioner has provided, that is understandable; (c) to a professional
corporation and its directors, officers and employees for a purpose relating
to insured services that were provided through the corporation, that's
understandable.
(d)
for the purpose of the administration of this Act; (e) for the purpose of
consultation between the minister and the medical association or the dental
association
(g) to a professional regulatory or licensing body for the
purpose of making an allegation
(i) to a person who is empowered by a
statute which requires disclosure of information; (j) for the purpose of
releasing information, including personal health information as defined in
the Personal Health Information Act,
to the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information in accordance
with the Centre for Health Information
Act and regulations made under that Act; or (k) in other circumstances
that may be established by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
All
of the other sections that are exceptions under the confidentiality section
make sense to me. The Support Orders
Enforcement Act one and the peace officer for the purpose of reporting a
suspected offence; I don't know why these are in this list. As I said, we
did ask in the briefing whether or not this exists in other provinces and
the officials at the briefing really didn't know.
I do
have a concern about using our health insurance and the health care system
because of the type of information that they have, the degree to which it
could open up for the danger of privacy breach. I have mentioned this to the
minister and I am asking for a clearer explanation of this. It could happen
today or it could happen in third reading. I would like to know, at least,
if it exists elsewhere because I have questions about that.
Mr.
Speaker, having said that, I think I have raised the points that were a bit,
sort of, key points for me that I wanted to mention. I don't have anything
else.
I am
looking forward to getting an answer with regard to the issue I have raised
about who gets access to information. Of course we'll be supporting this
act. I'm glad I've had the opportunity to speak to it today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes
the hon. the Member for the District of Burin Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 24. One of our defining
characteristics as a nation is our universal health care system. It is such
a part of our identity that we often take it for granted, Mr. Speaker.
Taking care of our citizens and providing them with health care makes so
much sense that it's easy to forget that it wasn't always this way. Thanks
to the multi-partisan efforts of Tommy Douglas, John Diefenbaker and Lester
B. Pearson, between 1962 and 1966 Canada implemented universal health
coverage, an initiative that has been of tremendous benefit to Canadians
ever since.
We
have much to be proud of about our universal health care coverage, Mr.
Speaker, especially when we compare ourselves with our neighbours to the
south. The United States privatized health care system seems absolutely
baffling to us. How is it possible that in the wealthiest country the world
has ever seen there are enormous numbers of low-income Americans who are
unable to access even basic medical care because the cost of insurance is
beyond their means?
Mr.
Speaker, to us that seems unthinkable, even obscene. To us it seems like a
government that is only interested in the health and well-being of some of
its citizens. Ones with money enough to afford too-steep insurance premiums.
Mr.
Speaker, there have been improvements to their system since the passage of
the Affordable Care Act under President Obama, but the United States still
fails many of its citizens. Its health care system is a long way from
addressing the diverse health care needs of its entire population.
Here
in Canada, that plan just doesn't make sense to us, Mr. Speaker. That sort
of neglect and indifference simply wouldn't fly up here. We recognize across
this country that even in the toughest of economic circumstances, we still
have an obligation and a moral duty to provide medical care to our citizens.
It is in our power and in our interest to do so.
Keeping our people healthy makes a stronger workforce, Mr. Speaker, happier
communities and a more sustainable future. It just makes sense to provide
universal health care. Again, it makes so much sense that it is very easy
for us to forget that it isn't something we have always done, that there is
a definite start date for this Canada-wide policy. Just like any policy, it
is constantly evolving along with the needs of people with shifts in
government and systematic upgrades.
Mr.
Speaker, insurance is an exceedingly complex operation with lots of
different stakeholders involved. In the case of health insurance with
people's good health hanging in its balance, it's crucially important that
it's done right.
So,
Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to rise in this hon. House today to speak to
Bill 24, which is an important piece of legislation that is being brought in
by our government. This bill accomplishes a lot of things, but in broad
strokes. It allows us to continue to offer insured medical services to our
citizens. It allows practitioners of dental and medical services to receive
payment for their services, and it protects health care consumers from being
over billed for services. In short, Mr. Speaker, it's one of these periodic
and necessary adjustments to the whole complex system that enables
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to receive health care services.
The
passage of Bill 24 will enable us to continue to provide MCP and hospital
insurance for residents of this province. Health care is very important to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and it represents our single largest
budgetary expenditure year after year.
MCP
is the insurance system that allows us to pay our health care professionals
and our support staff, and allows us to pick up the tab for our citizen's
health care cost, as we are obligated to do, Mr. Speaker. It is therefore a
privilege to stand in support of a bill that will enable us to continue to
provide this critical service to our people.
Bill
24 will also allow medical and dental care practitioners to receive payment
for their services. Without our health care professionals, we have no health
care system. These are individuals with specialized training who strive
every day to provide top-quality care to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Bill 24 ensures that these individuals are properly compensated
for their services.
This
bill also protects us, the government, from being overcharged for services.
Part of Bill 24 is ensuring our health care practitioners receive payments
for their services in a fair and efficient manner, Mr. Speaker. On the other
side of that coin, is that it prevents the taxpayers of Newfoundland and
Labrador from paying more than a fair price for its services.
Mr.
Speaker, what this bill essentially does is it makes sure that the fair
delivery of health care services cuts in both directions, for the providers
and for the taxpayers. It's a further refinement to the existing health care
insurance system in our province that will allow us to deliver health care
services in the best way we can.
There are other tweaks to the system contained in the bill. It grants the
minister the power to conduct audits for any kind of irregularities in the
existing insurance system. The minister might conduct an audit to identify
cases of claims that aren't supported by the proper documentation. This
protects the taxpayer from fraudulent or spurious insurance claims.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister can also conduct an audit to identify cases involving
uninsured services, medically unnecessary services, billing errors and
claims that don't follow the average patterns. The bill will enable an
auditor to inspect premises, review documentation, interview practitioners
or employees.
Mr.
Speaker, with a system as complicated as health care insurance in a
single-payer system, there are many possible avenues for abuse. Bill 24
protects taxpayers by granting the minister and his officials a recourse to
identify, prevent and seek remedy against any possible abuses. Again, an
adjustment such as this is keeping with the general theme of Bill 24, which
is making sure that the health care insurance system in our province is
working the way it should.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 24 also makes some necessary adjustments to the ways in which
services are paid for in cases of injury caused by motor vehicle negligence.
Injuries due to accidents and negligence are a terrible thing to live
through. It is incumbent upon us as a government to ease the burden on the
injured party and also to ensure the province is able to recover the cost of
paying for care in these cases.
Bill
24 contains other similar adjustments to the system of health care insurance
in our province, Mr. Speaker.
I
will conclude my remarks by restating how important this bill is. Since the
creation in the 1960s of universal health care coverage in Canada,
governments have a duty and a privilege to provide health care to every
single citizen. A machine as complex as the province's health care insurance
system requires periodic maintenance and updates, Mr. Speaker.
I am
honoured to speak in favour of Bill 24 which will allow our government to
continue providing the best possible health care to our people.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes
the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is certainly an honour to rise in this House and participate in the debate
on Bill 24. I too, like my colleagues, will be pleased to support this bill
in the House.
I
won't speak very long, Mr. Speaker. The Members who have stood in the House
so far have raised many issues and have summarized the bill quite well. So I
won't repeat any of that, but there was one question I did have pertaining
to the bill, and that is there are no reciprocal agreements in place with
other provinces. I was hoping that before the minister closes, perhaps he
can tell us if he thinks there will be any negative impact on our province
without such a reciprocal agreement.
I
guess the only loophole that's really jumping at me here is, if a
practitioner were to be overpaid and it was discovered through the bill and
mechanisms put in place to try and recover that overpayment, but the
practitioner decides to leave Newfoundland and Labrador and go on to another
province to live and work. We have no mechanism to recoup that money with
legal action. If that is something the minister could elaborate on for us,
we certainly would greatly appreciate that.
As
Members have already stated, this legislation has been in place since the
1960s. The provision of health care coverage to each and every citizen in
our province is absolutely one of our greatest privileges that we have as
Canadians. We're very fortunate to have it in place.
I
look forward to passing this bill in the House and continuing the great work
that does happen in health care for the citizens of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. Minister of
Health and Community Services speaks now he will close the debate.
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
heartened to hear the support from all sides of the House for this bill. I
acknowledge the questions that have been raised.
In
terms of the issues around access for Support Enforcement and peace
officers, my understanding is that this is an issue on a certain number of
folk who have support orders and they are not locatable. MCP does require a
civic address and not merely a mailing address. I think that has been the
driver for justice and public safety, as well as Support Enforcement.
I
think the Member opposite raises the issue of reciprocal billings. Just on
that, there is an interprovincial reciprocal billing agreement which is
actually governed under regulations under this act. Those regulations will
be refreshed from the two old acts and that's one of the reasons for a delay
in implementation to the 1st of October.
Those are my closing comments, and I'd urge Members to vote in favour of
this bill.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House that the bill now be read the second time?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Ms. Barnes):
A bill, An Act
Respecting Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The Province. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been
read the second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act Respecting Insured Medical And Hospital Services In
The Province, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes
the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 24.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded
that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We
are now considering Bill 24, An Act Respecting Insured Medical And Hospital
Services In The Province.
A
bill, An Act Respecting Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The
Province. (Bill 24)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 64
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 to 64
inclusive carry?
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Everybody is having a
hard time with that, Madam Chair.
I
would like to come back to a point that I raised in second reading. The
minister did refer to it, but I do have a specific question that I'd like to
put to him to see if he can come up with an answer. It has to do with
section 4 of the act which concerns confidentiality of information.
As I
pointed out in second reading A person employed in the administration of
this Act shall maintain confidentiality with respect to all matters that
come to his or her knowledge in the course of that person's employment and
shall not communicate the matters to another person, including an employee
of the government and then there's a list of exceptions.
I
put a question to the minister with regard to an exception that had to do
with information being given to a person employed by the government to
enforce support orders under the
Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006. That is new in our act and, as I
pointed out in second reading, it was asked for by the Auditor General.
I
know the minister explained what the reasoning is, but I would like to know
if this is a common practice in other jurisdictions in the country for
another department, such as Justice, to be able to access information about
an individual and in this case I know it's just the address but to access
information from the health care repository of information. Is this a common
thing? I don't know if the Minister of Justice has an answer to that, but I
would like to know if it happens in other places.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam
Chair, for the opportunity to speak and refer to the question here. I've
requested this information from people within the department. I'm pretty
sure that this has been done in other jurisdictions in this country. I'm
pretty sure but just to make sure, I'm asking for clarification. I can
ensure that I will provide that to you.
Again, I understand there is always a concern about protection of privacy
but when it also comes to certain matters where we're talking about Support
Enforcement or talking about MCP billing, we want to make sure that
individuals are paying what they should. There's always weighing that, but
what I can do, I can certainly ensure that I will provide that information
to the Member opposite as soon as I have that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm
delighted the minister has stood and made that commitment. And just to say
this is not frivolous on my part because we all know every time there is new
access to information, you open up the danger of a breach. So that's what
I'm concerned about. I look forward to the answer from the minister.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further
questions, we will now call the clause again.
Shall clause 2 to 64 inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 64 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act Respecting Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The Province.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 24
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I move, Madam
Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 24.
CHAIR:
It has been moved that I
rise and report Bill 24.
Is
it the pleasure of the House?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again,
Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the
Deputy Speaker.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, the
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 24 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the
Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the
matters to them referred and have directed her to report Bill 24 without
amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on
tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, just
before moving to the next motion, pursuant to the Order Paper, number 15, I
would move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House do not adjourn at
5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 3.
Pursuant to number 16 on the Order Paper, I would move, pursuant to Standing
Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2016.
Further, I would now call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed a privilege to get back up here again today and to speak on the
budget. For those following at home there's after being a sub-amendment, an
amendment and now we're back on the main motion today. This is the third
opportunity that I have to get up now and speak on it. There are some bills
coming that we'll all have an opportunity to do a little bit more speaking.
This
budget is something that I'm sure that everyone in the House could get up as
many times as they wanted. They could get up 20 times to speak on it because
there's a lot to it. There are some things in it that are good. Like I said
last week, there were things in it that are good and there are a lot of
things in it are not very good, Mr. Speaker. I think we're seeing it all
over Newfoundland and Labrador.
People are very upset and rightfully so. I know the government is accusing
us of fear mongering, frightening people and everything else. I can assure
you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll assure the people in Cape St. Francis I would
never do that to them because that's not who I am as a person.
I
think they should know the truth. I think they should know the implications
of what the budget is going to mean to them. I think that they should
understand the effect it's going to have on their families. I know some
people have grandchildren and children. Down the road there are going to be
huge effects.
If
you listen to the Members across the way and they give what they think of
the budget, it's action we have to do now and it's action that we have to do
to save our future and everything else. My fear of this budget and I'm
going to get into a few different aspects, but I just want to get this part.
The only fear that I'll put into the people in my district is the fear of
not knowing what's going to happen when people don't have the excess money
in their pockets to keep our economy going.
That's the biggest problem I find with this budget because I believe it's
way too much, too fast. I believe it's putting a burden on low-income,
middle-income, middle-class, hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I also believe it's really going to smack I spoke to a gentleman a couple
days ago small businesses.
As
we all know, small business is the key to any district in the province.
They're the generators that give us the jobs, whether it's the grocery
stores or it's the guy who's building homes or the guy who's doing
renovation. It could be anything. Small business plays such a role
especially here in Newfoundland and Labrador because we're spread out all
over the place and we do need to rely most businesses, with only 500,000
people and the geography we have, we know that each one of our communities,
whether it's the Burin Peninsula, the Northern Peninsula, Labrador or
whatever, small business is the key to the economy in our province.
The
only fear I have and it's a real fear is what's going to happen to small
businesses in this province. It's huge because when people have money in
their pocket it's the business that really benefit from the revenue that's
generated in the economy when people do have a chance to spend. They'll go
to the restaurants. They'll do that renovation on their home. They'll do the
small little things that keep these businesses going.
For
every job in a small business, it generates jobs all around. Whether people
are going to build homes or, like I said, do renovations, it's not only the
person who's doing that, it's the home building supply that's in your
neighbourhood. It's the local grocery store. It's the restaurant you go to
have your lunch and stuff like this. That's what's going to happen.
I
understand Members opposite get up and they say it's the worst time in 66
years worst time ever in 66 years. B'y I'll tell you one thing, if this
budget goes ahead it's going to be the worst time we'll ever see in this
province, down the road. I really do believe that because people are not
going to have the money to spend. You have to understand, this is going to
affect every one of your communities. It's really going to affect every one
of the communities in this province because people don't have that extra
couple of thousand dollars that keeps the economy going. This is what you're
doing to them. It's way too much, too fast.
Mr.
Speaker, in Question Period today I had the opportunity to get up and ask a
couple questions on libraries. We left the House here late last night and I
got home in time to watch the news and saw a few things that were on the
news last night. It really struck home to me because rural Newfoundland and
Labrador people will say: B'y, you're not from rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, but I'm from a small community, it is outside of St. John's, and
we know the little things in your community means a lot. Whether it's the
community centre that you go to for a community event, whether it's a
birthday or whatever, there are things in your community that are the centre
of your community.
In
rural Newfoundland, a library is important. It's an important part of who we
are. There are not a lot of things in rural Newfoundland it would be nice
to have all the stuff that you have in St. John's, whether it's a swimming
pool or activities for children or whatever it is that you could do that
people could go to, but in rural Newfoundland I watched last night in
Catalina, apparently now what the news report said last night was that it is
the oldest library in the province the oldest library. It was the first
library that was built outside of St. John's.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's good; I'm glad
you're happy to see that. I'm glad you're doing this again today because do
you know what? That's important to the people in Catalina. I saw two little
girls on last night saying if they close our library, where I'm going to go
to? I'm sure in Catalina I drove through the community thousands of times;
it is beautiful. That area of our province is absolutely beautiful. It is
absolutely beautiful. Go down around Trinity, down around Bonavista,
couldn't meet a nicer place in the province and I'm sure there are lot of
places like that.
There are young people that live in these small communities and these two
little girls that were on last night, they said this is a big part of my
community. What am I going to do? I'm going to go out on the streets; what
am I going to do out on the streets? I go to the library because we get free
magazines. They get to read; they get to use the Internet.
I
saw seniors there and they are using the Internet.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
Now if you have
something to say, go ahead; I'll listen to you. Is there something wrong
with that: rural Newfoundland and a small library in rural Newfoundland that
means a lot to the people that live there?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
It means a lot to the
people that live in rural Newfoundland.
Do
you know the one thing that really struck me last night? I watched a lady
last night and I'm not sure now it could be her grandchild or her child, I
wasn't sure because I didn't know who it was, but she was saying about how
important the library was to this little person who is going to kindergarten
next year. Because when they join the library, they get two free books. The
parent or the grandparent can take the child to the library so they can read
books.
I
know the Minister of Education knows all about education. He's the smartest
fellow in this House of Assembly; nobody else knows it like he do. But any
time we can encourage young children to go to a library, whether it's a
grandparent or whatever, to take a young child to a library and read to
them, that's got to be a good thing. It has to be a good thing. I mean,
that's a service that we're offered in it has to be a good thing.
I
know that my sister-in-law takes Jaxson I will say his name and then I'll
tell him I mentioned him today now in the House of Assembly to the library
in Torbay. She said you can try to get him at the house, say read to him,
but yet this was last year because he's in kindergarten now. She used to
say him, come on, we'll go to the library. He used to get excited about
going to the library. I wonder, how many of these 54 libraries that are in
our province that young children are not excited about going to.
I'll
go back to the Catalina one, because I know the Member knows a lot about it
and everything else. Do you know what the guy said last night? Just guess?
This library cost, he said, less than $10,000 to keep open. That's what the
cost is to government, less than $10,000. He said I think it could be less
than $8,000. Here's a service we're offering to people in rural
Newfoundland, in small communities, and $8,000.
I
know we shouldn't be closing libraries and taking away services from our
seniors, our young people, our teenagers who use it. It's not something we
should be doing. That's a backward step.
I
talked to a gentleman yesterday in Pouch Cove. He hasn't got a car. So we
tell him that the library you can use is in Torbay. How do I get to Torbay
every day, Kevin? He uses the Internet. He checks on stuff. He says it's a
great source. It's only lately he's really learned how to use the Internet
and get on things. What do we tell that gentleman? His library is closing
down.
You
guys were over last year, you were up talking. I know the Minister of
Seniors, Wellness talked about the seniors' advocate. I was here last week,
it got pretty wild about the seniors' advocate.
Let
me tell you something. Can I tell you something right now, and I'll tell you
seriously. You go back to all your districts, go back to every one of your
districts and see how many seniors are using your libraries. I bet you any
money that there'll be more seniors using libraries in this province than
will use the seniors' advocate. I really believe that because they
AN HON. MEMBER:
Absolutely!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Absolutely!
Especially in rural Newfoundland, just think about it.
I
saw the Member for Stephenville, there was a lady on last night and that's
what she talked about. She talked about the seniors who were in that
community who are going to use it. This is what they do. It's a service
we're offering people in rural Newfoundland. It's unbelievable that we can
even think about doing this cut. It's just not right.
The
longest library in the province, outside of St. John's, is in Catalina, and
for $8,000 we're going to close her down. I hope the Member from that area
votes for the budget and says he agrees with shutting down that library for
$8,000. That is ridiculous. That is shameful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
That is so, so
terrible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order, please!
I
ask the hon. Member, when the Speaker is standing all Members in the House
are supposed to recognize the fact that the Speaker has stood. I ask for
order in the House.
I've
recognized the Member for Cape St. Francis to speak. I expect that all
Members of the House will respect his time to speak uninterrupted.
The
Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, listen, I understand what Members are going through over on that
side. This is a very, very difficult budget. It's difficult. I understand
how difficult it is to sell it in your own hometown. I understand that.
I
understand how hard it is going to be for that gentleman to walk into
Catalina and explain to those two little girls or the lady there who was
teaching, why the library is closing down. I really do.
All
I'm asking, you guys and ladies over there said you listened. If you had to
be listening, like I did last night, to these people, why don't you react to
it? There are some little thing you can do. We need the libraries.
Honestly, I really believe we should be able to work on things like this. I
believe that for $8,000 I think that library should stay open and I think
all the libraries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'll give you an
example. I said today and I got a little bit involved in libraries. My
library in Torbay, there was a problem there. I got down with the library
association and we managed to save our library. It had to move out of a
municipal building into a new place. We were looking for extra funding, but
we got it and it was good.
In
the Town of Torbay, there was a fear they were going to lose their library.
Mr. Speaker, 1,700 signatures were presented through a petition to the town
council in Torbay and the town council in Flatrock, because some people in
Flatrock used it.
Do
you know what those elected representatives did? They stepped up. They said
we'll pay the $20,000 to keep that library open because it's important to
the people that elected us. It's the right thing to do.
Listen, whatever you do, can you just go and talk to rural Newfoundland,
just talk to the minister and explain to him. Maybe he doesn't know. Maybe
he just doesn't understand. Like most people don't understand what it's
doing to your communities. Think about it. Think about what it's doing to
your communities.
Let's have a look now at the communities. Let's have a look and see where
they're from. I guarantee you, just listen to where they're from: Arnold's
Cove, Bay St. George South, Bell Island, Bishop's Falls, Brigus, Buchans,
Cape St. George, Cartwright the Member who was just heckling me a few
minutes ago Catalina, Centreville, Change Islands, Churchill Falls, Codroy
Valley, Cormack, Cow Head, Daniel's Harbour, Fogo, Fortune, Fox Harbour,
Garnish, Gaultois, Glenwood, Glovertown, Greenspond, Harbour Grace, Hare
Bay, Harry's Harbour, King's Point, La Scie, Lark Harbour, Lourdes, Lumsden,
Musgrave Harbour, Norris Arm, Norris Point, Point Leamington, Port au Port,
Pouch Cove in my area Ramea.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It's shocking.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It is shocking; it
really is shocking.
Robert's Arm, Seal Cove, Sops Arm, Southern Harbour, St. Alban's, St.
Bride's, St. Georges, Stephenville Crossing, Summerford, Trepassey,
Victoria, Wabush, Winterton, and Woody Point.
Do
you know what they all have in common? They're all from rural Newfoundland.
Now you Members who are representing rural Newfoundland, that is shameful.
To
the Member from Burin, it's shameful that the library in your small
community is getting closed and you're happy about it. You're happy that
your place you're smiling at me because your library is closing down.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's shameful!
Shameful, that you're doing that.
Mr.
Speaker, libraries are an important part of rural Newfoundland. They're an
important part of who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It's very
important.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Humber Valley Paving.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Humber Valley Paving.
Do you hear that? We're talking about libraries, b'y. We're talking about
libraries. It's shocking.
I
told you earlier, there are seniors who use them. They go to find some
information. They go to use computers. They use email. They get information.
Maybe they can order something. I don't know, that's what a lot of people
are doing today.
We
have young children like I said, last night in Catalina, while the Member
over there is grinning at me again. Over in Catalina where they closed down
the children last night said, well, where are we going to go to? We're
going out on the streets. He's happy about that. I can't believe it.
Teenagers use it. There are a lot of teenagers out there who can't do their
homework at home, in smaller parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. They go to
the library because it's a quiet place to go to. It's a very quiet place to
go to, and there are resources there that they can use. Maybe the resources
are not at home.
Why
are you closing down these small libraries? That's my question. I don't
know, there are things we can do. Listen, there are lots of things in this
budget that we can do and there are a lot of good things. I think there are
some good things in there. I really do believe there are good things in
there. I ask every Member over there that I just named off in one of these
small communities that are losing their library, I don't expect you not to
vote for the budget, but I expect you to lobby the minister and tell him how
because he obviously doesn't know how important the libraries are to rural
Newfoundland.
Obviously, he didn't watch last night to see like I said I'm not sure if
it was the grandmother there with the little child where she gets two free
books. That's a service. Do you know what? We're spread out. A lot of the
problems in Newfoundland are that we're so spread out. Everybody realizes it
is. It is a problem when you go down the Burin Peninsula, then you go down
towards Marystown. We're spread out all over the place, but there are little
services that we're offering.
The
lady out in I think I read Lourdes and Cow Head, read a story on CBC this
morning. They were talking about the cost. They can't justify the cost.
Mr.
Speaker, we have municipalities stepping forward. You take it there are 25
libraries that are in municipal buildings. So let me tell you now, the
municipality in those 25, most of them pay for the heat. They pay for the
light. They pay for the cleaning. They pay for the snow clearing. In some
cases, and in a lot of cases, they give a grant to the library to help them
stay open like they did in Pouch Cove.
Pouch Cove had a group that was coming down, children after school for a
reading program, but they never had enough hours. It was only like 15 hours
or something like that to keep it going for that group. So the town stepped
in and they're a municipal town. They stepped in and under taxpayers'
dollars they thought it was that important that they invested $8,200 so
this program could be offered to the children after school. Isn't that a
great thing?
Municipalities are doing their part. They are. They're paying the heat and
light. That's the one in Catalina you'd say, gee, it can't be $8,000. That's
why it's $8,000 because the town is paying for everything else. It's just a
librarian, as far as I know, is the cost.
Of
all the cuts you can do, you're hurting the most vulnerable people in our
society. You're hurting the most vulnerable people. Like I said, there are a
lot of people in these towns that you say, okay, 30 minutes away go use
it, 30 minutes away. There's a library 30 minutes away and we're going to
open it for 30 hours a week.
There are a lot of people in those communities that haven't got
transportation to go the 30 minutes. I tell you when I looked at some, where
they're to and listened to people talk, a lot of them, I don't know the
one on Bell Island, I guess, they're coming to Torbay. I tell you that's
going to be 30 minutes, yes. I'm not sure what do we have? We must be
given I know what we're going to do to those communities:
helicopter service. It must be.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What about Fogo?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Fogo just think
about the islands. It's unbelievable.
Mr.
Speaker, I only have a short time left, but I'm just looking to the Members
opposite, especially the ones in rural Newfoundland. I'm asking you to stand
up for the people in your district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Stand up for the
people who are using these libraries. Stand up for the seniors. Stand up for
the teenagers. Stand up for the young people who are taking advantage of the
libraries in your community. This cost you're doing to these people, it's
not worth it. Down the road, we need these children well educated and our
seniors
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
my second time up talking to the budget. I have to say it's been a very
interesting debate. One thing that's fascinating is what goes on here in the
House of Assembly versus what's going on back in our districts.
I
live in one of these rural districts and I can tell you it's a very
interesting contrast. It seems that the further you are, of course, from the
voice that is St. John's, perhaps the more challenging it is. I must say, as
I get back, which isn't often enough I need to figure out how to clone
myself it's important to sit down with people and walk them through it.
There's no question the budget is complicated. It's complex. There were a
lot of changes that needed to be made and, frankly, there are a lot more
that need to be made in the future.
The
state of the affairs was, as many have described, when we went in in
December into the Cabinet room, we were thinking we might be dealing with
something in the vicinity, in the order of $1.1-plus billion. Over the
coming weeks, it was clearly evident that we were approaching some $3
billion and not only did we have to check ourselves, we actually had to do
something about it very seriously.
A
couple of the comments that the Member for Cape St. Francis just made, I
just wanted to respond to. I think it's really important. He talked about
the truth. It's really interesting. There are different definitions to the
truth. One can be the factual statements that you make, but there can also
be the collective whole, the sum of the parts. I believe that's what we need
to focus on.
At
the end of the day, we added things; we took things away. There's no
question the Opposition is pointing this out, both in the House and around
the province. They're identifying: Oh my gosh, they took this wonderful
program away, the Home Heating Rebate program or they added the levy tax.
What are these guys doing?
Collectively and I can assure everyone in the Cabinet we took a great
deal of energy and attention to ensure that those most vulnerable in society
would clearly, and will surely, be protected.
What
I'd like to do is walk through a couple of examples just to reflect that.
It's interesting, I had a gentleman in my office about two weeks ago; he was
69 years of age and he had an income of $16,000. He lives west of Happy
Valley-Goose Bay in a small home. He's got a truck that gets him going, but
it's certainly not one he's going to be able to depend on, so of course he's
nervous. He's hearing all of these alarming comments and, frankly, he wanted
to come see me and learn the truth.
So
back to the truth, I was able to sit down with him, and it was a good thing
I had some examples. Since that time, we have gone public with our app
online and people who can and are interested can go online and actually
determine their own situation. But for this gentleman, he's a senior; he's
about 69 years of age. I don't need to mention his name. His taxable income
is very different from his net income, which is about $16,000. His taxable
income, after all those deductions are made and so on, it's sort of that
last entry on your income tax form, is only $6,717.
He's
well below the threshold through which the levy would even start. He's way
below that. In fact, if you think about it and maybe I'll get off topic,
but I'll come back to my gentleman here in a second. In fact, you can be
much, much higher than this taxable income threshold of $20,000. It's
actually, at the end of the day, where do you sit after your deductions?
In
terms of his personal income tax payable, he doesn't have to pay because of
his income level. As I said, in terms of the Deficit Reduction Levy, given
he's below a threshold of $20,000, he similarly doesn't have to pay. We
estimated his increased estimated cost of consumption taxes, the various
little fees that we've added on there, represents an additional $240. So
unbalanced and the truth in terms of the whole sum of the parts, he would
have to pay an additional $240.
However, in terms of benefits, he's able to avail of two very important
programs that we've offered provincially. And as we've indicated, the
Premier has talked about it and the Finance Minister has talked about it; we
have greatly supplemented the Seniors' Benefit. So he's receiving an
additional $250 there. Then our corner piece, which is the piece that,
frankly, as we were going through the deliberations of this GRI Phase I, we
wanted to make sure again that those most vulnerable, the low income,
whether it be low fixed income, persons with disabilities, seniors with low
fixed income, we wanted to make sure that these people were not under any
further stress. That's the last thing from anybody's objective in this
House, or anywhere else in this province, or frankly around the country.
We
cannot afford to make any more strain or hardship on those folks. So we took
that money out of the Home Heating Rebate program. We've created this
Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement and I'm very pleased to say that
instead of money going to a household now just because you might be running
heating oil and so on and you're looking for an annual payment, let's give
it to the folks who actually need it. So we targeted for this income, the
lowest income groups. They received an additional supplement there.
Now
their total additional benefits are some-$470, representing for them
provincially an additional $230, this is net, plus the Guaranteed Income
Supplement of $947. This individual who lives in his home west of Goose Bay
if he's listening he'll recall our conversation I'm sure he now is able
to receive, as a result of the actions we took, as a result of the care we
placed on those most vulnerable, an additional $1,200 a year. I would
suggest that might be closer to the truth.
As I
said, when we walked into Cabinet and had the full realization, and then
through the budget we were able to roll out and explain to the rest of the
province where we were.
Back
to my comrade from across the way from Cape St. Francis, he talked about the
need to keep this economy going. Well, the fact of the matter is the way we
were going, we were going to be broke in just a few years if we kept at this
rate.
The
difference between spending and revenue is so dramatic, that gap has gotten
so out of control that even at the height of oil back around 2007, and
height of oil price, we were spending well beyond our means. Running up
deficits when, frankly, we were hoping for even higher oil and production
rates. We knew then that we'd hit our peak. Yet, we still kept spending.
We
don't have a revenue problem. Everybody keeps being fixated on what we need
to generate from oil, watching the price of oil, and yes, it will help us
right now, but we actually have a spending problem. We are spending so far
beyond our means. So in terms of keeping this economy going and so on,
that's in fact what we were thinking about when we made these decisions.
A
key fact I think that everyone needs to realize, even after this difficult
budget and the measures we've had to enact to finally get us back on the
right track, we are still spending more on servicing this massive debt than
we spend on educating our children.
My
comrade, I watch him every day, very eloquently defending the very difficult
decisions he had to make in education. The fact of the matter is he has less
money than the bankers are asking for in terms of what we owe them for the
monies that we've had to borrow in the past. That same kind of pressure
translates to every one of the ministers. We're all feeling that pressure,
and I must say it's an oppressive pressure. We cannot continue on this same
vein.
Another comment the gentleman just made across the way from Cape St. Francis
was that we are enacting these measures way too fast. Yes, it might feel
that way in terms of the full extent of everything we did and what we
changed. The fact of the matter is that this needed to be done.
I
also would argue that by targeting seven years out before we're going to get
back to a surplus, which is where any responsible government should be
it's seven years away so I would argue it's actually not that fast. It's
going to have to go through some seven years of action and sticking to this
plan that we've launched before we get there.
As
painful as it is, I can assure people that if we really went in a quick way,
we would really be dealing with some strong ire and some kickback. As I
said, yes, in terms of looking to the future and not having the dollars to
spend, we need to make sure that we make these fiscally responsible
decisions right now.
Another comment that I hear out there, and again I'm going back to the
truth, whether it be last night watching our Premier and the Finance
Minister answer questions put to them by CBC, who I thought did very well
and did a very good job there's often a point raised that somehow the
actions that this government has just taken are going to drive people out of
this amazing, wonderful province. In fact, they may have to drive quite a
ways before they find a better situation in terms of personal income tax
payable.
Despite all of the moves and the initiatives and yes, we have had to
increase taxes we still remain at or below our Atlantic provincial
counterparts. I can go through each of them and fill up all manner of time,
but the key point is that we are at or below each of our Atlantic provinces.
As you look across the country, in fact, we are extremely competitive. This
is across all taxable income brackets from $20,000 to $150,000. We have
taken steps to ensure that we remain very competitive. I would suggest that
if people are leaving, it can't be because of our budget moves.
I
also have another, and the Minister of Finance tabled this last week so I
don't need to table it again. It's there for everyone to review. There's a
breakdown. It actually goes up to the super high-income earners of some
$250,000 to $10,000 taxable income. You can see where we sit across the
country; extremely competitive, again, back to the truth.
In
terms of looking at where we are in terms of overall taxation and as a
comparison of provincial income, what we're seeing in terms of income tax,
the temporary levy we've had to instate, that total cost versus what was
going on in 2006, we are at that level now. To suggest we've somehow put
additional hardship on people of this province, in fact we have had to step
back and get a grip on our spending. We are just back to where we were just
a few years ago when oil and oil production and oil prices were at their
peak, but we've managed to go back. This time with the full realization and
full commitment as to what we need to do, we should be in a much better
position than we found ourselves when we walked into that Cabinet office on
the 14th of December.
I'd
like to talk a little bit about some of the as the Member for Cape St.
Francis as indicated, there is good news in the budget and I'm going to talk
a little bit about that. I'm going to talk specifically about my District of
Lake Melville and Labrador.
While I'm thinking about Lake Melville, and before I forget, I did want to
make a special mention of a very important individual who, unfortunately,
died just a couple of days ago. He was a very good friend of mine, David
Massie. He's one of the builders of Labrador. His funeral is tomorrow.
Even
in the last few days of his life he still was talking to me about my
impressions, what we were doing and full faith and support of me. I must
say, when you have people like that, people who literally in their dying
breaths are saying: Perry, do the right thing. I'm very proud to say that I
feel that's in fact what I'm doing. That's what I'm charged to do.
I do
apologize for just mentioning my first name. I'm like my comrade over on the
other side.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. TRIMPER:
In terms of Labrador and
some key spending announcements we've made, perhaps the most common comment
that, frankly, anyone in Labrador will make in terms of where we need to
invest when it talks about infrastructure is in the Trans-Labrador Highway.
As
I've mentioned before in the House, the Trans- Labrador Highway is not just
a regional highway. It's a highway that connects the entire province to the
goods and services that we will be able to avail of at a much cheaper, a
much more efficient means in the future when it's completed. It's just been
a few years of course since we hacked that path through the woods. I was
actually involved in the environmental assessment of the project. I know it
very well.
We
are now moving. The previous administration was allocating significant
resources, absolutely, to getting the widening and the paving done to create
a safe highway. Madam Speaker, you know yourself how dangerous it is driving
on that road when it's not complete. We both are sharing lots of excitement
and adventure in the last few weeks even.
It's
not done. So we need to recognize that, and I'm very pleased to say our
government has agreed with that. We have allocated some $63.7 million for
actually levering very soon to be announced federal commitment which would
greatly supplement that and certainly will carry us on for completing this
important link as soon as possible.
Further to that link of the Trans-Labrador Highway, of course, is how do we
get across the Strait of Belle Isle? I know yourself, Madam Speaker, you
know how important that link is especially to your district. You feel and
hear it every day. While we're making progress, it remains a bottleneck in
terms of efficient movement of goods and services and people safely across
between the Island and Labrador.
Until we get this entire link put together, I would suggest we will not feel
like a solid province. We still are challenged by our geography and it's
infrastructure like that that will pull, not only the province together, but
I suggest it will pull the province into the country.
It's
good to see we've also allocated some three-quarters of a million dollars
towards an update of the feasibility study associated with that fixed link.
How might we do it? Would we copy the Bay Bridge-Tunnel down to Chesapeake
Bay where we might go under, or a bridge, or some other option perhaps of an
enhanced ferry that could deal with the ice and the demands of linking up
the Island with Labrador?
Further on transportation, I'm also very pleased to say the clear
recognition of the cost of travel. I feel it every time I travel back and
forth to my district, down to the office here. We've allocated some $730,000
to continue that travel subsidy for Labrador teams and individuals to
participate in athletic events here on the Island.
Somehow I'm always amazed how the small communities, especially the ones in
the Member for Torngat Mountains but also in your district, Madam Speaker,
small, little communities, and one could certainly recognize the
infrastructure could be better in terms of training facilities for
recreation and so on, but somehow they pull it off.
I've
seen outdoor arenas, no roofs on them, yet the kids are out there in some
super-cold weather developing important skills playing hockey, for example.
So it's good to see that recognition that will help bring our very capable
athletes to the competitions and, frankly, whoop them good sometimes, as
they do really well.
Another important concept in Labrador it was interesting; I was in a
meeting this morning with the Member for Torngat Mountains talking about the
importance of the winter access we enjoy just through that beautiful 10
months of winter and two months of bad skidooing. That's Labrador. To really
take full advantage of that situation, we need to work with the Labrador
winter trail system and the trans-Labrador trail. We've allocated $351,000
for continued grooming of the trail subsidy and maintaining our winter trail
system, and pulling all of our communities together. It's extremely
important.
Another important announcement for Labrador, and one that I'm particularly
proud of because it falls within my own Department of Environment and
Conservation, is the ongoing need to continue the remediation at the former
American radar base at Hopedale. The provincial government has spent, to
date, some $12 million on the remediation of both soil that's been impacted
by contaminants, mostly by PCBs, and other hazards.
Government has recognized the importance of cleaning this up. We agree with
that concept not concept, but with that absolute requirement, again, a
vulnerable population. I'm very pleased to say that government has announced
a further $1.46 million this year towards the cleanup and the remediation of
the impacted soil.
I
note and I wanted to underline this because, of course, there was another
announcement of a pullback of some $200,000 from that program. The $200,000
was actually allocated towards steel and non-contaminated debris that sits
in another aspect of the former radar site in Hopedale. While it would be
nice to get this eyesore out of the way, frankly
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
MR. TRIMPER:
it was recognized that we should deal with what's most important for human
health. So that's where we put our effort.
Another little small detail but very important, we have some amazing
communities throughout the province. One I'm very proud of in my district is
that of Mud Lake. The community of Mud Lake has some 56 people when
everybody is home.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. TRIMPER:
The only way you can get
there is by boat in the summer and snowmobile in the wintertime. They have a
little bridge that connects the two parts of the village. That bridge has
deteriorated to such a point that and I was there just a couple of weeks
ago I could literally walk right through the bridge if I wasn't careful.
It's extremely dangerous.
I'm
very pleased to say that my colleague from the Transportation and Works
Department has announced tenders for the resurfacing, upgrade and
stabilization of that very important bridge in the community of Mud Lake.
I'm very happy to see that happening.
(Speaks Russian.)
I'll
go back to speaking English. People said I should speak Russian to get
everybody's attention. I could do that too.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You got everybody's
attention.
MR. TRIMPER:
Okay.
(Speaks Russian.)
I
think that an important aspect of some of the medical transportation
programs and so on I just wanted to assure people, before I run out of
time, that there is support where there have been tough decisions. I'm
pleased to say that I was in a meeting this morning with my Labrador
colleagues talking about ensuring we have programs there to support people
even where there are cuts.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
remind the hon. Member his time for speaking has expired.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member
for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's
good to get up and speak again on the budget. Like I said yesterday, I'll
say every time, it's always nice to get up in the Chamber. As my colleague
said, there are some good things in the budget, no doubt. I'm not sure what
they are, but we'll find out eventually I guess.
I
said to someone today it's incredible; outside of the 30 Members here in the
House, I haven't heard a one single person that supports the budget so
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
I am still willing I
live in hope; I might die in despair, but I do have confidence I'll hear
some good news eventually.
What
we've heard so far is not very good, Madam Speaker. As my colleague pointed
out about the libraries closing, Members opposite don't seem too stressed
about it, but on this side of the House we have concerns. My colleague for
Conception Bay East Bell Island is losing his library. Most of my
colleagues are, Madam Speaker, and I think everyone should be concerned. The
public are concerned and we have stacks of emails that will also support how
people are concerned.
People can make light of it, but I'm sure all the hon. Members don't. We
most definitely don't, but some do and that's their prerogative, Madam
Speaker, and that's something they'll have to answer to their constituents
for.
As I
was speaking yesterday, I think I'd like to go back to what you constantly
hear when you go to the coffee shops or you go out in my district anyway. I
know most other districts must be the same. People's confidence is down
their consumer confidence. Again, if you're consumer confidence is down, it
don't take an economics major to figure it out. If you're consumer
confidence is low, spending is low. It has a drastic effect and everything
else. I said yesterday about home builders. You go talk to automotive
dealers, you go to most small business owners, you go to large business, you
go anywhere people are noticing the slowing down of business at Tim
Hortons, believe it or not. Now I haven't seen that yet because every time I
go there I'm in a lineup, but there is apparently a slowing down.
That's not abnormal. We've had a good run of years but you go back years ago
and you look at restaurants. Downtown, we noticed, in the last year there
was a downsizing maybe it was too many, but some restaurants are closing.
You watch as time will progress here now and you will see a rash of that
happen again because again consumer confidence is low. It is going to be a
lot lower. Ironically, talk about messaging, a lot of these budget
initiatives haven't even taken place yet and people have pulled back
already, just on the fear.
Back
in December and January when the Minister of Finance and the Premier went up
I went to one of their briefings in the media room and things were still
relatively going well then, but they put the shock to the system. It was
like hang on; we're probably not going to see a lot of these real effects
until later on in the summer and fall but people pulled back immediately.
That's the risk you run when you shock you are sending shockwaves to the
economy. And like I said, you don't have to have an economics major to
figure that out. People pull back. They are uncertain. Am I going to lose my
job this fall? Where are we coming up with this extra money? I have
insurance renewal. Wait until July 1 comes. Most everyone's insurance
renewal is in July I know mine is. You're going to start to see a trickle
effect but right now we're into April and we're just into May and consumer
confidence is low.
I
can only anticipate it getting lower. As I stated earlier, I haven't heard
anything good in the budget. Again, I'll give it weight and my colleagues
can fight it out, I'm sure there is stuff good, but maybe the messaging
needs to improve because I'd love to hear some good news. I keep saying,
I've said this numerous times while I've stood in this House and I'll say it
again, if there is stuff we don't understand because I do know, there's
one thing I'd like to point out too. I forgot to say it yesterday, but I
have to say it today. We may not be as smart as a lot of Members on the
other side, but we do know how to talk to our constituents. We can talk to
them and they respect what we have to say. We may not be up to the level
over there, but tell us what's in the budget. We want to know. You might
have to say it slow because we don't understand.
The
hon. Member for Labrador West, you have to say it slow to us because we
don't understand. I tell you, people in our district understand us and we
all just got elected because they like us and they listen to what we have to
say and I'm going to continue say and stand up for my district, like you
should stand up for yours. All of you should up for your districts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
That's a problem in this
House. You can play the game of party politics but you should be standing up
for your district residents. Look at the emails. My colleague there has a
folder; he can't even get them on his desk. They all have concerns. A lot of
them live in your district; maybe you should start looking at that.
I
got some more notes where am I going to now? I'm going to read a couple of
emails. As I'm sure you are aware these are from real people, by the way.
These are not from anyone's puppets in here; these are real people. This is
not cherry-picking; this is right off the list.
As I
am sure you are aware, the 2016 budget recently announced by the sitting
Liberal government is a direct slap in the face of all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. The number of fee increase, new fees, newly imposed raised
taxes is nothing more than a knife in the back of the province's people.
Once again, the middle and lower class people who are the backbone of the
province are being required to bear the brunt of government's fiscal
situation while upper class continues to pay minimally.
There has to be other ways of reducing debt and maintaining services without
crushing the spending power of people point in case, the consumer
confidence. I can't throw it away; I have more on this one. After all, the
people will stop spending due to higher tax and fees for just about
everything that our government come up with the money to pay the debt and
pay the services. A good point.
If
people stop spending, it has a trickle effect. Again, I'm going back to the
economics point but I have to say it again. It's counterproductive because
you are upping the taxes so they are pulling back, revenues will slow down.
I don't see the balancing effect. If you're going to raise taxes and
everyone is going to have the same confidence and safe spending the way
they've been spending for the last five years, well maybe it works; but it's
counterproductive because you're upping the taxes, spending is going down
and you're not getting as many taxes. You are crushing the economy. Time
will tell, but I'm convinced that will happen and I'm sure a lot of Members
opposite, if they want to be honest, will tell you the same thing.
I
have another few emails. I got up again last week and I had a list there and
I could go through it again. I am sure it is too painful for some of you to
listen to about some of the investments in the last 10 years. The MHA for
Torngat Mountains, I made a note, he mentioned the other day if we had the
money that the previous government had, what we would do differently. He is
welcome to read this because there are a lot of great investments and I
don't think anyone over here is going to hang their head about it. What
would you not have spent over here? Anything in that list you wouldn't have
spent? I don't think so.
I'll
make another quote, Madam Speaker, what I heard I heard this yesterday and
I like to make notes. I like to use real stories about real people. This
person who, again, I don't have a lot of political conversations said
outside consulting for labour negotiations, unbelievable. So I made a note
of that. That's what the real people, that's what the people who voted for
each and every one of us in here are looking at everyone in here for
leadership, that's what they're saying. They're all in shock.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Five libraries can
say that.
MR. PETTEN:
Five libraries,
absolutely. We're only saving a million dollars on libraries. We are
probably going to spend several million dollars paying for these experts.
But again, we don't know as much as the other side so again we have to be
careful. You need to be careful.
Someone called me this morning too. They were having a discussion, just
talking about what's going on with all the budget. They said: I remember
back in 2004 when the public sector strike was on. The previous government
was just in their first several months in their mandate, a big protest;
there was a lot of uprising. You had the public sector affected. My wife is
a public sector worker; she was one of them people on that picket line. You
are a select group. There is a vast majority of people in this province were
not affected. There was one group affected and they spoke out and they
fought and that's what the unions that's what was supposed to happen.
Government had their battle; it was a tense time.
You
had the crab dispute. Again, you were into one pocket of fishermen and their
families. That was a really tough dispute. It worked out, but those disputes
will come and go but you zeroed in on a certain specific groups. This budget
is after hitting every single person in this province, every single group in
this province, every single region in this province, every family.
I
can sit here and criticize it, but that's the reality. I'm not making this
stuff up. You just turn on the news, flick on the radio or go out and walk
to the supermarket. I went out Saturday and Sunday to events in my district
and I spent half the night talking to people about the budget. They weren't
like: Oh, the Liberals are this or the Liberals are that. They were almost
dismayed.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. PETTEN:
That's the word. They're
speechless. I don't know what are they at? Could you do any worse?
Again, you can stay in a bubble and not realize that's the reality that's
out there. Members on this side of the House and I'm sure a lot of Members
on that side because there are a lot of good Members over there, if they
listened to what people are saying, they're hearing what we're saying too.
I
realize I will say it again it's a tough situation to be put in, but it
is what it is a quote that was said by the Premier recently. I use that
quote too, by the way. It is what it is. They're the ones who have to answer
to their constituents.
Good
or bad, I don't shy away from my constituents. Whether they call me, whether
they email me, whatever they want to do, they come in the office, whatever.
That was one of the things I campaigned on. That is one of the things I will
continue to be and one thing, I believe, we all should be is accessible. I
won't shy away from issues whether they like stuff or not, I will take it
head on.
I
will be quite honest with you. I really believe that's what the public are
looking for, for all 40 districts. You read some stuff I don't like
personal attacks. I've read some stuff recently in the news. I don't condone
that. I don't like it. It's not where I'm too, but on the flip side and I
am not justifying by no stretch, Madam Speaker people are frustrated. If
they don't feel like you're listening to them, they're going to get more
frustrated. They're going to get angrier. They're going to have these events
and that's the unfortunate part.
Frustration brings the worst out of a lot of people and, I believe, right
now, we're seeing the level of frustration rising on a daily basis. We're
seeing protests. I'm fearful these protests if there don't soon be some
action or something the people are looking for answers. They're looking
from something from the government.
They
can watch Question Period every day. They can watch the hon. Members get up.
They can watch us get up and throw questions and the Members get up and
answer questions. They're not getting the answers they want. I know,
personally, I see the emails come in.
We
sat last night. I got home around 12:15 a.m. When I got home I spent 20
minutes or a half an hour reading emails on the budget. It's tiring, but I
try to respond to every one of them. I'm reading them and I'm going: Oh my,
not another one, but I'm not complaining. Don't get me wrong, but it's like
you realize the anxiety. I'm getting people emailing me at 2 o'clock in the
morning. It's incredible.
I'll
read another email I have here. I know desperate times call for desperate
measures. Having said that, the combination of raised taxes, additional
levy, putting sales tax back on insurance they say in this Newfoundland is
the only province that will have tax on auto insurance, let alone a 15 per
cent increase in fees. I'm not sure if that's accurate but regardless, these
people are desperate. People who are currently struggling will never
survive. Average-income people will have stress and it will impact family
relationships. Children will be denied participation in sports, other
activities and result in hanging out, which may lead to other further
problems.
Whether that's true or not, that's their concern. They're real people. They
live and walk. They drive the same streets and have to go to the same coffee
shops. These are the people that marked X's for a lot of people in this
House. That's what people are concerned about.
They
want people to listen to them. They don't want to get up and get theatrics
and point the finger and blame this crowd and blame that crowd. They could
care less for that. Your library is closing, but they'd rather the Minister
of Education get up and give a valid reason and justified reason instead of
pointing the finger at what was done over here, or cutting teacher
positions. They're worried about the children being jammed up in a class.
No,
he's going to get up and point fingers across the way and blame and play the
role of theatrics. I said yesterday to my colleague there because me and
him have a few good conversations I think some Members opposite were
auditioning for the Trinity Pageant. I don't know if Ms. Butt is looking for
new recruits because I think there are some of them moved up along. I think
the Minister of AES is on the top of the list. There are others over there
too I think are trying.
AN HON. MEMBER:
An Oscar win.
MR. PETTEN:
He's going for the Oscar
award because he was all over the place. I don't have a clue of what he
said, Madam Speaker. He got up the other day and he went on and on and on
and I looked what did he say?
The
Member for Baie Verte Green Bay, is it? He got up yesterday and I have to
give him credit, he was phenomenal. He made shots at us, he made criticisms,
but myself and my hon. colleague he was singling out. That was for no other
reason to say he did a great job. You can criticize; you can do what you
want. That's fine, that's fair game. We all do criticism. Do it in a
respectful manner.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Me and my colleague gave
him and I'll do it again. It was a great job. Not that I can say the same
about the rest of them because they're getting up, they're dealing with
their constituents, the ones that voted them in. Instead of talking to them,
they're in here blaming us.
Like
the Member for Stephenville Port au Port, he was there yesterday and it
was you. I said my God, what about the libraries? What about the stuff that
matters to the people? No, no, he wanted to blame the former we had
another Member who was up and he was going on and going on and criticizing.
That's not what people want to hear.
MR. K. PARSONS:
They want to know
about their library.
MR. PETTEN:
They want to know about
their library, about their schools, about
AN HON. MEMBER:
Health care.
MR. PETTEN:
Health care. What else,
b'ys?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Busing.
MR. PETTEN:
Busing, yes. Those are
the real bread and butter issues. They don't care about blaming anyone else.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much is it going
to cost to live here?
MR. PETTEN:
How much is it going
what about the levy? What about the insurance tax? What about the gas, 16.5
cents a litre; what about you have to pay twice as much to get into a park,
twice as much to get your car into a park. If they like to camp, they can't
afford to camp because they can't tow the camper. When they get enough money
to get gas in the truck to tow the camper they can't afford to get in the
park. So what's the good of it. Sell it all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
But no, they'll get up
and point fingers and blame and heckle us, oh yes.
The
hon. Member for Cape St. Francis mentioned about the library in Catalina
because he cares, people care in this province. All we get is heckling from
over there. What's he saying wrong? He's upset the library is closing.
Another Member there from (inaudible) talked about the AES office closing.
That was a terrible thing. It's not happening is it? Is it all reversed?
The
Minister of Education is over there. He's ready to go jarring me, but every
answer he's given has been theatrics. He's number three on the list for the
Trinity Pageant.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
He's number three. He's
dropping down the list.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
The Minister of AES is
still number one, Madam Speaker. He's still on the top of the list. He's
fighting it, although I don't think he's going to pull it off.
I'll
go back to my point.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker is having trouble hearing the hon. Member. I ask Members for their
co-operation.
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
I have to remind them,
because when you get these opportunities you have to make your point clear.
There are a lot of people I won't say everyone, because I like a lot of
those Members, but there are some of them over there a lot smarter than us.
It's frustrating.
I
considered myself to be before I came in here I thought I wasn't bad. I
passed everything I touched, but this crowd here. I thought I could handle
myself around most groups but they're smarter than all of us. Everyone in
Newfoundland
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, I would say so
but nobody understands like them.
I'm
soon going to start emailing constituents back and say, I don't know what
they know. Maybe you should cc them on all the emails you send me because
when I write you back, if I make a mistake they can fix it for me. I'm
thinking about doing that, Madam Speaker, because we have a lot of smart
people over there. We have people who tell us they're going to say it slow
so we can understand. Now I have to tell you, that was the most offensive
comment, one of the most offensive things I've ever heard in my life.
Then
we have the Minister of Health. He gets up and I mean he was up today in
Question Period questioning what the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune
said. We watched it. We watched the recording, then he denied it.
Again, there's a lot of women in his district who have early breast cancer
screening. He'd better go and talk to them. Don't talk to the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune. Talk to the people out in his district who voted
for him when he's up with his nonsense comments. Do you know what, Madam
Speaker? Again, he's a bit smarter than us. So I have to put that in
context.
I
have to go back again and say, the Minister of AES, I really don't think
there's anyone going to come close to beating him in the Trinity Pageant. I
know it might be when the House closes, the timetable. I believe Donna
starts that around my time in Tourism, the Minister of BCTRD knows that. I
think it's around June it runs. When the kids get out of school, isn't it,
they start up? He may be late for the first performance but he'll be there.
AN HON. MEMBER:
He's rehearsing.
MR. PETTEN:
He is. He did a great job
rehearsing. I'm not sure what sketch he's going to have this year, Madam
Speaker, but I have a feeling he's going to be definitely on top of the
list. There are others fighting for it.
The
Minister of Education, I don't think he's going to make it but he got they
have a lot of roles. I know the
Republic of Doyle used to be down there and we'd call them fillers. They
give them a couple of hundred dollars to walk around while the main actors
are doing their performance. So while the Minister of AES is up doing the
lead act the Minister of Education walks behind him, waves, with his hands
in his pocket. He'll be great at that but he won't be able to say nothing.
When
the libraries are closed, he'll be the guy going around putting the locks on
them, right? With a nail bag on, he'll be putting the lock on the door. I
really think he'll do a great job at that. I do and I wish him well.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) closing
them down.
MR. PETTEN:
Oh yes, I hope he doesn't
close her down.
The
Trinity Pageant is great. I'm not sure which district this is located in.
I'm not sure if it's the Member for Terra Nova. That's a great pageant, by
the way. When you go this summer you'll be able to see your colleagues on
the stage.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
How good can it get?
You
should invite all your Members out. Hopefully they can walk in public then.
Go out and take them out for a day because they have an outdoor pageant. But
it's going to great to watch the Minister of AES lead the charge. I might
even drive out to it. I live in CBS, I might come out and join you.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
I'll stay with you. You
got her buddy, I can stay with you.
My
time is wrapping up and I'm in a mood now, I can go for about two hours.
Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure to get up and speak on the budget. We don't
agree with this budget. We don't agree with a lot of the stuff we've heard
across the House. We ask for you guys to start listening to the people, not
talking to us, talk to the people.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The
budget came down and for the last two-plus weeks
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. HOLLOWAY:
I don't know that I want
to match that because I've looked at postage from Members opposite and some
members of their family and how they criticize Members on this side of the
House for laughing and smiling when we're talking about such a serious thing
as the budget. I take exception to the Member opposite today joking and
carrying on about the Trinity Pageant. Well, that is a great event; I've
attended it. I know some of the organizers quite well, good friends of mine.
But this budget and it's so serious for us to be accused of laughing and
smiling, yet there's so much jovialness that's happened this afternoon in
this House about the budget, that's where the real shame is. It disheartens
me actually.
Madam Speaker, the Member opposite talk about we have not gone to our
districts. We have been in hiding, afraid to approach our constituents.
Well, I can tell you for certain that Thursday nights after the House is
closed, I get in my car and I drive to my district. I go to meetings; I
spend all day Friday, Saturday and Sunday meeting with constituents
addressing their concerns.
My
intent, Madam Speaker, is to provide clarity because of the misconceptions
that have been provided to people. On this past weekend and I was
criticized for it I went to one of the most remote communities in my
district: St Brendan's. On Friday night and the Members opposite talk
about that we're afraid to talk to our constituents, to deal with the
questions that are going to come. I was informed on Friday night that there
was going to be a protest once the ferry docked in St Brendan's.
Do
you know what, Madam Speaker? That did not deter me because it's extremely
important to meet constituents and to answer their questions, no matter how
upset they are over this budget or how upset they've been made by the
misinformation that's been provided.
So I
went to St. Brendan's; there was no protest. I was told on my way over there
that the protest would probably go to the community centre. Still, my
interest is to go and meet the good people of St. Brendan's and to talk
about the issues that are important to them. When I got to the community
centre, people were quite friendly. They shook my hand and invited me
inside. Forty-seven people turned out, Madam Speaker. The mayor of the
island spoke and she talked about the impact of the budget on the people on
the island, and the impact on the people there is very similar to everybody
else in this province.
So
when I had the opportunity to speak, I referenced some of the things that
the mayor had brought up. They asked about the levy. It was an issue for
people there. It's been an issue for everybody in my district. It is an
issue for everybody in this province. And when I clarified for them that 43
per cent of the people in this province will not be impacted by the levy,
people's attitude started to change.
When
I further said that of the remaining people, the 62 per cent that were going
to pay the levy, that the amount they would pay would be less than $340 so
in effect, Madam Speaker, we have 65 per cent of the people in this province
that will pay less than $340 as the deficit reduction measure that's been
brought out by the levy. And it's temporary, so it's meant to be phased out.
When I talked about and provided that clarity to people and I said for this
year, it's really half that, the attitude again started to change.
People asked about full-day kindergarten. I said what I can say to you about
full-day kindergarten and I draw upon my experiences as a volunteer,
having been a volunteer in the community. I was involved with the Family
Resource Centre in the Clarenville area. We tried for five years to get
daycare, make it available to the community. The current Leader of the
Opposition was actually the minister for Child, Youth and Family Services at
the time. I can remember the money that was required to retrofit the
building, to provide public child care to the community so that parents
could go back to work and continue to be contributing members of the
community and of our society, it required $300,000 to do the renovations and
to meet the legislation and the guidelines.
The
former member for Trinity Bay North, I can remember when he called and he
said: Do you know what? The minister has $100,000; that's all he can give
you. I said: Wow, we've worked at this for five years as a not-for-profit.
We had to give up on it. We couldn't provide it. So I said to the folks in
St. Brendan's that one of the reasons I'm in favour of full-day kindergarten
now my background is in is in early childhood development. I know all the
studies. I know all the benefits of kids having early intervention and how
that gives them a one-up, a better chance for the education they will have
and the outcomes they can achieve, but it's also tied to the child care
piece.
We
can invest money into child care. The challenge we ran into in the
Clarenville area besides the fact that we couldn't convince the former
administration to give us the money to do something as extremely important,
despite all the money that was available and lots of times it's been
already referenced about $25 billion but we couldn't get it for something
so important to allow parents to go back in the workforce and to put
children into quality child care.
So
we couldn't get the money. We also couldn't recruit the staff. So parents
said: I wouldn't have this issue for my child that's in half-day
kindergarten if they could stay all day. When I referenced this to the folks
in St. Brendan's, they said: Okay, we get it. Now we understand.
The
point I'm trying to make, Madam Speaker, is that it's important, and it has
been extremely important for all of us, to provide clarity to the
information that's been put out there. Somebody asked me: Where did all the
money go? I said: Well, I can give you a couple of examples because I really
don't know where all the money went. I worked in the public service, but I
still can't tell you where all the money went.
I
gave them the example of the Terra Nova trestle. I mentioned it when I spoke
to this budget over a week ago. The fact there was a brand new top put on a
trestle and the minute it was finished the trestle was closed. Now, in this
budget we've had to identify some funds to go and fix the problem so that it
reopens.
I
talked about the fire truck that went to Eastport a $275,000 investment
that couldn't fit in the fire hall. Again, we have to find $600,000 to right
fit a fire hall. Where did the money go?
I
had a call from a resident from the Member for Ferryland's District who said
to me: Do you want to know where the money went? Roads that were perfectly
fine to go over, good asphalt, repaved last year terrible, awful, terrible
for that to be happening. I suspect there were lots of examples like that in
this province.
So
people ask: Where did the money go? I can tell you at the end of the
discussion, people came up to me and they shook my hand and they said thank
you very much for clarifying the things that are out there. I got on the
ferry and then I went to Glovertown because I wanted to meet with the local
library board to talk about the impacts of that library board and the
library in the school.
I
met with the local library board; we had a wonderful conversation. It is a
fantastic venue for kids, for the school, for the youth. We sat down and we
had a great conversation. My commitment to them was to see if I could work
with them to find a solution; $25,000 is what was required to continue with
the library in the school. It's a tremendous asset to the community, and I
get it.
Now,
some people were accusing me on Saturday of being afraid to go out and
engage the members of the library board. I can tell you, I am not afraid; I
look forward to the opportunities to provide clarity and information. So I
met with the library board and they, too, thanked me for coming out and
meeting with them.
I
was pleased to have had a discussion with the Minister of Education and to
hear of his comments now over the last day that there is no movement on
school libraries. We have some opportunity now until the end of October to
work with library boards and schools to find a sustainable solution.
I
talked to the chair of the library board; I talked to her yesterday and I
talked to her again today. She phoned to thank me for helping them to find a
solution so that this asset is still available to the community. So I say to
the Members opposite, I have like my colleagues been engaging our
members, our representatives, our constituents to hear the concerns that
they have.
I
will read for a second, Madam Speaker because I get these messages all the
time as well. I won't use my first name and be out of order: Just wanted to
send you a little note today to encourage you. As of recent I've seen some
very and it uses a colourful language commenting on your posts and
updates. It seems like everyone has an answer to fix the problem, but no one
is willing to stand up and do the work.
So I
thank you for taking the time to be a public servant. You were not required
to have these headaches and tough conversations, but you chose to represent
your district. I'm not sure if you are and he talks about being a
religious person. He says that he's praying that I will have the strength
and the ability to continue and that I will have the encouragement to do
what is best for the people of Terra Nova District. Thanks for your efforts
and enthusiasm in serving the people of this district. Have a great day.
I've
had a lot of messages like that. I've also had a lot of negative ones. I've
had some of these other ones who are from people who truly understand, Madam
Speaker, that when it comes to fixing this issue, this problem that we have,
there are only a few things before us. We can borrow money and we've almost
borrowed to the extent that we can. So we've got a couple of other options
before us.
We
can raise revenues through taxation and economic development or we can
reduce public services. Having been a former public servant, I can tell you
that would not be my primary option. We have talked about reducing services,
finding the right fit, being more efficient in the public service through
attrition. It's our preferred option. That's certainly a method that I'm
interested in.
It
goes back to what other options do we have. Now, we've done some things in
this budget that nobody likes. We've raised taxes that are going to have
impacts on everybody. We've also put in some mitigation that's going to
lessen that impact by the low-income supplement and the Seniors' Benefit.
The
calculator came out yesterday. I know within my constituency office, my
assistant has been helping. People have been phoning in trying to understand
how all these impacts are going to impact them. My constituency assistant
tells me that people are put at ease when we explain the impact and give
them some real information.
Madam Speaker, I had a call over lunch from a lady in my district. I
recognized the first three digits from my district. I answered the phone and
she said, oh, you're not so-and-so. I chuckled, and I said who are you
looking for? She said the person's name. I said, no, actually you have the
MHA for the Terra Nova District. Oh, she said, it's nice to talk to you.
Well, she said, I have a question for you. She wanted to talk about the Debt
Reduction Levy, and she wanted to talk about the increase in gas and the
HST. So I explained it to her and I explained the calculator. I explained
how it was going to impact her and the income that she has. At the end of
the discussion, she said to me, I am so glad I dialed the wrong number
because you've made my mind at ease.
Now
that has happened so many times in the past two weeks. When I see all the
postings on social media and people saying negative things about us, and
putting out not quite the accurate information and the fact that we've taken
the time to clarify for people, people have a different perspective.
There was a demonstration in Gambo about the movement of staff and the
closure of the CYFS office. I received an invitation after the fact, but do
you know what? Again, I'm not afraid to approach people, try to understand
their perspective and to bring those issues forward to my colleagues in
caucus and into this House.
So I
called the organizer of the rally. He was surprised actually, that I gave
him a call. We had a great conversation about the rally and the impact the
closure of that office will have on the community. I said to him at that
time, that I had actually spoken with a lady, a public servant who works in
that office. She had told me about the impact it would have on her and the
fact that her colleagues now would be working out of Gander but providing
service back to the Gambo area.
I
related to it, in that when I worked in the public service and I was moved
from Clarenville to Bonavista and still provided service back to
Clarenville, how I was able to do it and still provide great service to the
people of the entire district. So at the end of the discussion, while we
didn't agree on every aspect, at least we had respect for each other for the
points we both made. The person who organized the rally was very
appreciative of the fact that I picked up the phone, I took the time to give
him a call.
Madam Speaker, there are a lot of really good things in this budget I see
my time is running out. I really wanted to talk as well about a great piece
of work, and maybe I'll get a chance to speak again before the vote on the
budget a great piece of work when we talk about, how do we make rural
Newfoundland sustainable?
Well
I was involved in a wonderful project that was just finished since I became
elected. It was just finished. It really gives a great report on the things
we need to invest in in our rural regions to make them sustainable.
I
encourage, and I provided copies of that report for Members of this House so
that they can see. There are things in this report, Madam Speaker, that
directly speak to the investments we have made in this budget and it's the
evidence we need for the investments that are being made. We have said we
will make our decisions based on evidence. This research, which was done in
conjunction with Memorial University, supports that.
I
encourage Members opposite as well to take some time to read the report and
then compare it to the investments in the budget and you can see why we made
the investments we are making because this is the evidence that supports
that.
I
see my time has run out, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
remind the hon. Member his time for speaking has expired.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
I'd welcome an
opportunity to speak again.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Madam Speaker, given
the time, and with the consent of my colleagues, I would suggest that we
adjourn now for supper and return at 7 p.m.
MADAM SPEAKER:
This House now stands
in recess until 7 p.m.
May
3, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 21A
The
House resumed at 7 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from
the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 6.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Stephenville Port au Port, that Bill 6, An Act To
Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act, be now read a second time.
Mr.
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It is
moved and seconded that Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters
Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters
Act. (Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
an exciting piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to
open debate and speak to Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Professional Fish
Harvesters Act. We are proposing a number of changes to the act. While these
changes are important, they are mostly housekeeping in nature.
Before I
speak to the bill, I would like to take an opportunity to provide some
background on the Professional Fish
Harvesters Act. Newfoundland and Labrador was the first province in Canada
to recognize fish harvesters as a profession. Beginning in the early 1990s,
harvesters expressed an interest in professionalization.
Professionalization recognized the special skills and experience required to
become a professional fish harvester. It involved bestowing professional status
on fish harvesters who have had a long attachment to fishing and set qualifying
standards for new entrants to the industry.
The idea
of professionalism in the fishery was the subject of a number of community
consultations. Consultations were held in 1991 and 1994 with fish harvesters at
the community level to further redefine the professionalization programming.
There
was over 90 per cent acceptance of professionalization by fish harvesters at
these sessions. From these meetings, a model of certification for fish
harvesters was developed and, in 1996, the
Professional Fish Harvesters Act was enacted, the first of its kind in
Canada.
In 1997
the act allowed for the establishment of the Professional Fish Harvesters
Certification Board, a non-profit organization created and operating for the
benefit of all Newfoundland and Labrador fish harvesters. At present, the board
consists of 15 members appointed by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
and members serve for a period of three years. An appeal board consisting of
three members appointed by the minister was established to hear appeals of any
professional fish harvester whose certification is refused by the board or is
dissatisfied with the certification status he or she is given. Members of the
appeal board also currently serve a three-year term.
The
Certification Board has significantly contributed to the industry by defining
standards of professionalism, providing an advisory role for federal and
provincial governments and operating and maintaining a fish harvester
registration system. The board has also developed education and training
activities, a code of ethics, fish harvester designations level I, II and
apprentice, and developed and promoted safety training.
The
board estimates that 95 per cent of crew members in the province are registered
with the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board. Newfoundland and
Labrador is recognized as having the best trained fisheries labour force in the
country in terms of the amount and level of training. We are also recognized as
being the province most compliant with Transport Canada's Marine Personnel
Regulations.
Mr.
Speaker, some of the changes to the act, I would like to take some time now to
go through the amendments we have put forth before we start into debating this
legislation. Once again, these legislative amendments are essentially
housekeeping in nature and are intended to clean up the outdated sections of the
act; maintain the function of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification
Board and appeal board; allow the minister to defer the establishment of the
disciplinary board until such a time as it is required; and clarify references
to the powers of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board, the
appeal board and the disciplinary board.
The
amendments propose change to the composition of the Professional Fish Harvesters
Certification Board. Some of these changes have come about as a result of
changes in the names of affiliated organizations or have arisen because of
changes in responsibility of organizations previously represented. Currently,
the legislation calls for one representative from the association of
Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries co-operatives, which is no longer active. We
are proposing to change this to a representative from a registered fisheries
co-op.
The
current legislation also calls for a representative of the Department of
Education. We are proposing to replace this with a representative from the
provincial department responsible for post-secondary education. The provincial
government department responsible for post-secondary education is currently the
Department of Advanced Education and Skills.
In order
to allow some flexibility to have participants from more than one federal
department, the legislation will change such that the current wording calling
for two representatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada will be
changed to say: two representatives from the federal government, at least one of
whom shall be the federal government department responsible for fisheries.
For
example, there may be benefits in having another federal department represented
on the board such as Transport Canada, given its role in regulating vessels and
training requirements. A seat on the board for Human Resources Development
Canada has been vacant for some time and the responsibility for post-secondary
education was transferred from the federal government to the province several
years ago.
Since
there is already representation from the provincial Department of Advanced
Skills and Education, we plan to change a section to allow for a representative
appointed to represent Aboriginal fish harvesters in the province. The
provincial government has had representation in the past from Aboriginal groups
wanting representation on the board and the board is supportive of this change.
We are
proposing allowing members to be appointed for up to three years rather than
three-year terms in order to maintain the Professional Fish Harvesters
Certification Board schedule of appointment expiries as set out in the act. This
will also support the continuation of the Professional Fish Harvesters
Certification work as members' appointments expire.
We are
also proposing to allow members of the Professional Fish Harvesters
Certification Board, the appeal board and the disciplinary board to continue to
serve after their expiry of their terms until reappointed or replaced.
Currently, the act allows for members of the Professional Fish Harvesters
Certification Board and the appeal board to be reappointed; however, it does not
provide the authority to allow a member to continue to serve beyond their expiry
date.
The
policy of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board and appeal board
has been to allow the members to continue to serve in their current capacities
until they are reappointed or replaced. This will be formulized into practice.
This is a standard provision of many government-appointed boards and it will
support the continuation of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification work
as members' appointments expire. These changes will also want to confirm that a
vacant seat in the board does not invalidate the constitution or impair the
rights of remaining members to act so long as the membership of the board does
not fall below 11 members.
The act
currently reads the board shall consist of 15 members appointed by the minister.
The Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board currently has 14 members
and has, from time to time, due to shifts in federal and provincial government
departments, responsibilities that I have spoken of earlier. Inclusion of such
sections will allow the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board to
continue to work if one or more vacancies exist.
The
amendments clarify reference to the powers of the boards. The term board is
defined in the act as the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board;
however, in various sections of the act the term board is used when referring
to the appeal board or the disciplinary board.
The
current wording could potentially lead to confusion. Updating these sections to
clarify the references to the powers of the boards is needed. Section 19 of the
act is being repealed, as it refers to the appointment of appeals panels for the
period of 24 months from which the act became enforced. This provision was
intended to be a temporary one and no longer has any effect.
The act
currently reads, The minister shall appoint a disciplinary board which shall
hear and determine complaints against professional fish harvesters. To date, a
disciplinary board has not been required or established since the Professional
Fish Harvesters Certification Board was established in 1997.
The
Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board believes it is important,
however, to maintain the ability for it to be established if the need arises.
The proposed amendments allow the minister the ability to delay the appointment
of the disciplinary board until a compliant has been received and the
Professional Fish Harvesters Certification requests its establishment.
In
conclusion, Mr. Speaker, to quickly recap these amendments: allow members to be
appointed for a term less than three years; allow members to continue to serve
after the expiry of their terms until reappointed or replaced; update the
composition of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board; confirm the
vacancy in the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board does not
invalidate its constitution or impair the rights of those of the remaining
members to act; delay the appoint of a disciplinary board until a complaint has
been received; clarify references to the board and repeal the obsolete
provisions.
Mr.
Speaker, our government recognizes the importance of professionalism in the
province's fishing industry and we continue to work and support the Professional
Fish Harvesters Certification Board in maintaining and advancing professional
standards for our fish harvesters.
The
Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture has worked very closely with the
Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board in putting together these
amendments. Both the department and the board believe these amendments are
prudent and will help ensure the board continues to meet the objectives into the
future.
I look
forward, Mr. Speaker, to hearing what others have to say during our debate and I
will be pleased to have a few more words as we move forward in closing the
debate on these important housekeeping items.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Indeed,
it is a privilege to rise here again tonight and talk about professional fish
harvesters. Mr. Speaker, we've come a long way. I know it has been a long while
now since '97 since this was first introduced, but our fisher people are
professionals. They definitely do a job that I know takes a lot of pride. People
have a lot of pride and they're very professional with the work they do.
I know
in the past, when you look at fishermen, there were times when safety wasn't a
big issue and standards weren't the way that I think I spoke the other day
about growing up and seeing how we were handling our fish. Today, if you look at
the example of the crab fishery that's being caught right now, in order to be
able to put that to market there have to be certain standards put in place. Our
fishermen are doing that because they realize the markets today are what they
have to adjust to. Professionalism in the fishery is a very important thing. I'm
glad that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were the first ones to be, in 1997,
recognized as professional fish harvesters.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister went on with a lot of the stuff the bill has. I'd like to
thank the people over in the Department of Fisheries. Being the Fisheries
critic, it's the first time I had the opportunity to work with a lot of people
over there in the department. If you ever want to see a bunch of professional
people, you can mark that one down, I have to say. I'm very impressed with the
department, very impressed with the briefing they gave us. In all aspects, I'm
fortunate to be on the All-Party Committee that would meet on a regular basis
with my colleagues across the way and the Member of the Third Party. I have to
say, the staff over there are fantastic and their knowledge of the fishery is
unbelievable.
Mr.
Speaker, like I said, we're the first in Canada to recognize fish harvesters. I
guess so we should be, because our fishery is such a big part of Newfoundland
and Labrador and to recognize the special skills and experience it is to become
a fish harvester.
Today,
technology, if you look at I can remember the old 8 Acadia going out across
the bay and you'd hear the putt-putt. I know most Members know what I'm talking
about. You just look at the technology that is on these ships today, it's
unbelievable. I know my brother and them; they went out the other night. They
were gone 200 miles off. You're going out in the fog and everything else. The
technology and the professionalism these people do now, it's great that they're
recognized.
A lot of
what we're doing here today is basically we're making sure that the bill that
was introduced in 1997 is brought to today's standards. There are a lot of
things after changing, and the composition of the board and what they do has
changed. An example is we had the Department of Education that was handling one
part of it, and now we're changing it to AES. That's where it should be.
There
are other things that are changed there. DFO had two members, but if you look
today you'll see that Transport Canada are the people that decide on the
standards of the boats and gives accreditation on whether the boat is seaworthy
or whatever to go out on the water. So it's important that they're involved.
Mr.
Speaker, it consists of 15 members also, and sometimes it's a job to get
everybody together when there's a meeting needed. So I think the change on it is
they can have quorum now with 11 members. They also had it that every three
years there was somebody replaced. Now this year, there'd have to be nine new
members replaced. They're changing that so it doesn't necessarily have to be
right on the three-year mark, which is a good thing to do.
The
other thing that's important to understand, what this board does is it gives
recommendations to the Department of Fisheries to set standards and policies
that are important to fish harvesters. It's important that they have a word
it's great to see that somebody will listen to a fish harvester.
Then,
it's like anything, if we had to listen to the fishermen years ago we probably
would never have had the moratorium. It's good that people are listening to
harvesters and understanding that I spoke yesterday on a petition, and the
minister agreed with me after when we had a talk about it.
What's
happening right now in the fishery is people are not listening to the
professional harvesters. When you can see there are boats that are out at crab,
and it depends on the size of the boat with the quota you get, but we've got
large vessels tied up at the wharf and they're forced to use smaller vessels.
Too
often we've seen in Newfoundland where the fishermen are not listened to and we
see tragedy. This is a case of it, because we saw it last year in Arnold's Cove
when a larger vessel was tied at the wharf while the fishermen were forced to go
out in smaller boats and catch crab because it was an inshore licence.
There
are a lot of policies at the Department of Fisheries and people have to listen
to them, because there's no one that knows more about the water than our
fishermen, because they've been there. I guess it's like any occupation, really.
Mr.
Speaker, also, they got a registry. There's a registry and the minister just
mentioned, I think it was did you say 95 per cent of fishermen are in that
registry now? That's important, too, because that lets people know. Then they're
just Level I, Level II. Also, you've got to be a certain certification in order
to be able to take the size of a vessel out on the water. That's important,
because that shows it's like any job, I guess, you have to have the proper
training to be able to do your work.
Again,
our fishermen are very professional. If you want to take a 65-footer out 200
miles offshore, I hope you know how to operate it. They do. That's what this is
about. This is about having certain standards in place and policies in place.
It's about safety. It's about people being able to be on the water knowing that
standards and things are in place so that their crew members are safe. It's
important to the families who are at home.
I go
back to my own family. When the young fellow was fishing last year or the year
before last, gone all night long, then coming in, you'd be kind of worried what
they're out in. So it's nice to know there are standards and policies in place
so that fishermen are as safe as they can be. It's a huge thing that DFO
listened to the fishermen and listened to the people who are in the industry
because they are very professional and they know what they're doing.
Mr.
Speaker, there's a disciplinary board that the minister talked about. There has
been no appeals to the board as of yet. It's almost a board that if something
comes up I think, Minister, that's the way it's going to be done if
something does come up, then the board will be put in place so it can hear what
the appeal is. That's something we don't need. If there's no need of it, the
minister can take care of that.
Mr.
Speaker, there's not a whole lot more I'd like to say here. I think it's
important that as long as there are 11 members available to meet, that's okay
if there are members who are after going off the board, so 11 should be okay.
Again, I
mentioned about the disciplinary when you look at the term three years. This
year, Minister, I think there are nine who need to be replaced. It's important
we stagger that because sometimes, as you know and everybody knows, it's a job
to get people to serve on some of these boards. So rather than getting nine, get
three or four. It's a whole lot easier.
We had
one representative from Human Resources Development with the federal government.
Now that's going to be changed to an original member. That's huge because it's
great that we have everybody on this board that represents all fashions of the
fishery. It's so important that everybody is represented. I think that's a real
good move.
Like I
mentioned earlier, Transport Canada there are after being tragedies on this
Island around the water that sometimes we looked at some boats from Transport
Canada that were too high in the water and the buoyancy of the boat was the
cause of some of the tragedies. Some of these boats today are 65-feet long, yet
they are about 30-feet high. It's important the proper engineering and
everything is done. So Transport Canada is great to have there.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not going to go through all the changes here but most of them are
to make sure that this committee works well, and that our Professional Fish
Harvesters Certification Board shows the fishermen really that we respect what
they do. The fishery and fisher people are very, very professional people today.
It's important that they stay like that.
I go
back to my younger days, my first job, I always said, was signing the slips in
the fish truck. Then when I got my licence, I could drive the fish truck. I know
a little bit about the fishery and I know how far we're after coming. It's so
important that we recognize fish harvesters for who they are, very professional
people that do a great job for this Island.
I'm very
proud to say that I know a lot of them and they do a fantastic job. I think this
is a bit of housekeeping, but it's a good bit of housekeeping that needed to be
done.
Thank
you very much, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The hon. the
Member for Stephenville Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Professional Fish
Harvesters Act. Much like my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and the Member
opposite, the Member for Cape St. Francis, I'd just like to start by
acknowledging the great work of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification
Board and, in addition to that, the staff in Fisheries that have done some work
in looking at amending this act.
Generally speaking, we are just doing some housekeeping items today, but it
certainly is important. Some of the housekeeping items, in addition to simply
wording, we're also looking at some positive changes as well.
I had
some brief experiences, actually, with the Professional Fish Harvesters
Certification Board in my role as an employment counsellor. I would help
individuals who were seeking retraining to go on and do their MED A1 and their
MED A3, as yourself, Madam Speaker, would be familiar with as well as we both
served in that capacity. At every opportunity, the Professional Fish Harvesters
Certification Board was a pleasure to deal with, a pleasure to work with and so
were the individuals seeking training in that capacity.
As
mentioned, the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board, being the first
area of its kind in '96 actually under a Liberal government which is important
to note, the act being the first of its kind at the time. That board was really
meant to establish and recognizing the professionals in the industry and the
great work that they do and really putting a professional standard to the
occupation.
In
addition to that, they'll be providing an advisory role to the federal
government and to the provincial government. They'll be operating the
registration system as well. In addition to that, again, the educational
opportunities were quite frequent and they continue to be ongoing to this day:
designations Level I, Level II, Apprentice, and so on and so forth. Of course,
as the Member for Cape St. Francis mentioned, the safety and the promoting of
safety training is of paramount importance as well.
The
legislative amendments here that we're looking at this evening, we're just
updating some wording. One of the key things, I think, that we're really looking
at here as well in terms of the compositions of board is very important. No
longer do we have the federal department of human resources and development.
Outside of that role there, we're looking at an Aboriginal representative. I
think that's very important. I think we all recognize the importance of
Aboriginals in our society and, particularly, Aboriginals in Newfoundland and
those that partake in the fishing industry. To apply an Aboriginal lens as a
member to the board, I think that's certainly a great step in the right
direction.
In
addition to that, we're looking at allowing some members to serve after the
expiry of their dates until they're reappointed or replaced. This is just to
ensure the ongoing operation and efficiency of the board. We don't want to be in
a position where the board drops to a certain level of members and they're no
longer able to continue with their ongoing daily operations. So it's just
essentially about efficiency there.
We're
also going to delay the appointments of a disciplinary board until a complaint
is received. I think that's just a common sense kind of amendment here really.
There's really no need to have a disciplinary board unless a complaint is
received when you look at another board getting together.
Speaking
of the word board actually, that was the one that really stuck out at me the
most in reviewing some of this legislation. It was kind of really around the
wording. The wording of the act is where it's going to change in three or four
different sections. Unless you're really paying close attention, you wouldn't
notice it.
Basically throughout the act, it refers to board and you can appeal to the
board. We don't know what board that's actually referring to in the act. So the
act is kind of referring it to now so you can appeal to the appeal board as
opposed to appeal to the board. You don't know what board you're appealing to.
Under the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board there is an appeal
board and a disciplinary board as well, so some minor tweaking there just
essentially around wording.
In
addition to that, some changes around the representatives from the federal
government. The current legislation states that we'll have two representatives
from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We're going to replace that now
with two representatives from the federal government.
As the
Minister of Fisheries had acknowledged, I think that's important because we all
understand that it's more than just the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that
plays a role in looking at fisheries in the province. The transportation and
safety department from the federal government could play a role around the size
of the boats; it could be a department of environment official if need be. So it
really just allows for a more open and flexible opportunity to allow members
from the federal government to play a role. In addition to that, we are just
looking at ensuring that the number of the board does not fall below 11 members;
again, to ensure the ongoing operation of the board. Just some minor stuff there
as well.
Then, as
well, when the term of a member of an appeal board expires, he or she will
continue to be a member until the member is reappointed or replaced. This is
something we kind of just have to do right now because as Members are aware, and
Members opposite are aware as well, we're still in the process of putting
through legislation around the Independent Appointments Commission. So until
that time, we need to ensure the ongoing operation of this board is still intact
and its integrity still remains as well.
Other
than that, again, it's simply just a housekeeping item, some minor cleanup. I
would like to think that we'd have the co-operation from all Members on our
side, as well as Members opposite, Members of the Third Party, in ensuring that
the minor amendments to Bill 6 here will pass with ease.
There's
really not much more up for debate than that. This is not a controversial bill.
Again, this is a bill just simply to ensure that some of these housekeeping
items are cleaned up. I think the last time the bill had any minor amendments
was 2004. There may have been some other amendments in '96-97 when it was first
introduced, but outside of that, today we're essentially just doing some good
housekeeping items.
In
concluding, I'd like to thank the members of the Professional Fish Harvesters
Certification Board, as well as the Minister of Fisheries and his staff for the
great work they have done in ensuring that we recognize the professionalism of
those involved of fish harvesters and of individuals and fisherpersons all
across our province.
With
that, I'll take my time to just again extend my thanks. I would hope that the
Members opposite would agree in participating, in agreeing that these are good
amendments to Bill 6.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I'm glad
to be able to stand tonight and add my voice to those who have spoken to Bill 6,
An Act to Amend the Professional Fish Harvesters Act.
I thank
the speaker for outlining all the details really of the bill that we're facing
here tonight and also for arranging for a briefing that we had with regard to
this bill. As the minister said, it's basically a housekeeping bill, and others
have repeated that. I'm not going to go through the bill in detail. The minister
has done it and the other speakers have made references to the main points.
I think,
basically, just like in 1997, the fish harvesters in the province grew up with
the recognition of the need for a professional body. They formed the
Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board. The act that was started then,
and which has had some revisions, is growing up again with this bill tonight
because there are some things in it in particular.
One that
has been referred to, for example, is having a representative appointed to the
board representing Aboriginal fish harvesters in the province. This is something
which is so important. Right now, for example, on the All-Party Committee
dealing with the shrimp fishery, even yesterday when we met with the Ministerial
Advisory Panel, the concern of making sure the Aboriginal harvesters were part
of the whole process. So we are doing something extremely important in the
province when we naturally recognize the role of the Aboriginal people of this
province in the issues that concern the province. Certainly, they have been part
of the fishery, and having their voice is extremely important.
The
board has been extremely important with regard to the modernization of our
fishery. Certainly, the Member for Cape St. Francis has spoken to that
modernization. It's something to be proud of actually, proud of our fishery.
Sometimes I get concerned when you don't see departments like DFO recognizing
the knowledge and the expertise of our harvesters. They certainly recognize
their expertise, and that's what the board is all about, is making sure that
people who call themselves commercial harvesters are certified to maintain the
professionalism they have attained. It's important for us then to give them the
framework they need to continue doing their work.
The
board, of course, the whole formation of the board was spearheaded by the union,
the Fish, Food and Allied Workers, and supported by fisheries co-operatives, the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture
and other government agencies and educational institutions. The board is an
excellent example of how the province's fishing industry can be approved when
all parties work together, and that's what this board is about.
When the
act was passed originally, there was over 90 per cent acceptance of
professionalization by fish harvesters. They recognized what this would mean for
them. Since then, the board has pursued its vision of promoting a commercial
fishery sustained by independent professional fish harvesters.
It's so
important for us to support this board and to support all the efforts to
maintain our fishery in this province. I'd like to use this bill, which is a
housekeeping bill, but to make that point of how much we and I know the other
two parties in the House, and as we're working together on the All-Party
Committee, I recognize how much we believe in maintaining the fishery.
The
fishery still, I believe, is the core of our economy. We have to keep
strengthening our rural communities because that's where the fishery lives is in
our rural communities. We have to recognize that they are the core of our
economy. So I'm happy to have the opportunity, because of this bill tonight, to
be able to make that point here in the House.
We have
to do everything we can to make sure that our harvesters and our plant workers
are maintained and that the industry itself is maintained. Our fishery is a
renewable resource and we have to make sure that we do everything in our power
to maintain that resource and the industry, especially important now with the
resurgence of the Northern cod and the commitment of all in the industry to a
quality-based sustainable resource.
This
board is going to have a really vital role to play as we redevelop our
traditional resource that's going to be so important. Preparing for the cod's
resurgence is going to require investing millions of dollars, but it's also
going to require investing and training for a new professional harvester sector.
In some places it's almost going to be like starting from scratch, because with
the resurgence of the cod, it's going to be a different fishery. You have new
technologies. There's so much that is new that wasn't there in 1992. So this
board will be extremely important when it comes to the whole issue of the
resurgence of the Northern cod.
That's
all I'm going to say, Madam Speaker. I don't want to beat this to death. I think
we're all in agreement that we need this bill and we'll be happy to vote for it.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Fogo
Island Cape Freels.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
Madam Speaker, it gives me
great privilege to stand in this hon. House today and talk about Bill 6, An Act
to Amend the Professional Fish Harvesters Act. I represent a district where most
of the people in my district, I would think, are either fishers or families of
fishers. So the development of this board was very important. It started in 1997
with some objectives to make the fish harvesters look more as a professional
group. I think they've come a long way since '97.
They
operate and maintain the registration system of fish harvesters, which is very
important, because no one really knew who bought part of the fishery, who had
what licences. They have been evaluating and recommending some training courses.
For
anybody who is around the fishery, they should know it's very important to have
training in the fishery. Too many times it's been unsafe. I can remember back
years ago one of the logos of the Department of Fisheries was: Don't let your
greatest catch be your last reward. We have seen so much change in the style of
the boats, the safety of the boats, and it is much to the credit of the
professional fish harvesters for it and their certification.
Everyone
else has had their say the minister went in great detail of the changes in the
act. It is like any act, this was done in 1997, it has been reviewed and now
it's being reviewed again. It is basically cleaning up the act to deal with
things that are pertinent and up to date for today.
I am
just looking through it right there the association of Newfoundland fisheries
co-operative no longer exists, so there's no point in keeping that in the act.
So those are some of things they did. The representative from the Department of
Education: It was fine to say education, but now they are saying from a
provincial department responsible for post-secondary education. It is just
cleaning up the act in all ways, shapes and forms.
The
composition of the board: It used to say two representatives from the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans; now it is two representatives from the federal
government. It is all things that make it more easily flow. A representative
from human resources, the seat has been vacant and the responsibility of
post-secondary education is transferred to the provincial government. That is
going to go now over to the Aboriginal fish harvesters in this province which
were never represented on this.
The
three-year term of the board had to be looked at. There was a time when it went
on, so it is up to three years. Now everybody knows, once they get there, it is
a three-year term and how it flows over into the board. To deal with the vacancy
so it never goes below 11, so the board can always flow and keep going.
The
appeal: You would appeal to the board, so now you would appeal to an appeal
board. These are all things to make it better, to make it flow, so that the
professional fish harvesters when they sit down now, when they go to their
meetings, they have somewhere to go, they have some good guidance for it.
I'm not
going to say much more, only I think this is great and it should see everybody's
support in this House. I haven't heard anyone speak against it. I look forward
to supporting this bill in the upcoming motion.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture speaks now, he will close debate.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
First of
all, Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank the Members this evening for taking part:
the Member for Stephenville Port au Port, the Member for Fogo Island Cape
Freels, the Member for Cape St. Francis and the Member for St. John's East
Quidi Vidi. I also have the opportunity to serve with three of these Members,
the Member for Fogo Island Cape Freels, the Member for St. John's East Quidi
Vidi and the Member for Cape St. Francis on the All-Party Committee on Northern
Shrimp.
Madam
Speaker, lots of times in this House we don't all agree and we have some heated
debates; but, other times, when there are issues like the fishery, we often find
agreement. We've worked very hard in the past number of months on the LIFO
policy and the position of the All-Party Committee and we'll move forward. As
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi mentioned in her remarks, just this
week we met with the ministers advisory panel. We'll be putting forward a
position to that panel in the coming weeks.
These
are important changes when it comes to the Professional Fish Harvesters
Certification Board. We will continue to evolve this board as we move forward,
again, back to some of the remarks in the Member for St. John's East Quidi
Vidi about the importance of this board as we move forward into a revitalized
ground fishery, one that we hope not only hope, Madam Speaker, it's a very
important board as we move forward in a new ground fishery.
The
Member for Cape St. Francis talks about safety. He and I have conversations on a
regular basis. One of the things we talked about yesterday was vessel safety.
We've made representation to our colleagues in Ottawa to make sure that as we
move forward in our fishery that it's important we look at vessel size and
vessel safety to make sure that the people that harvest one of our greatest
resources are safe in doing so.
Also,
one of the things in debate tonight was the importance of professionalism of our
harvesters. One of the things that helps maintain the integrity of the fishing
industry is fleet separation. The Professional Fish Harvesters Certification
Board plays a very important role when it comes to fleet separation.
It's
also interesting to note that in 1997, the disciplinary board was enacted in
this piece of legislation. Since that time, almost 20 years, the disciplinary
board never had to be used. I think that speaks to one thing. I think that
speaks to the true professionalism of our harvesters and the industry this board
represents. To think of a board that can go almost 20 years without having to
bestow or involve disciplinary action on one of its members, I think, certainly
shows the professionalism of our harvesters.
The
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi recognized in her remarks the other very
important component of our industry, and that's our plant workers and our
processers. They play a very important part in this. It's all of these groups
that come together to build this $1.2 billion, and event today, employing over
18,000 people in our province.
So
again, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure this evening to speak to this bill. It's
great to see that this bill will receive unanimous consent. So with that, Mr.
Speaker, I will close debate on this portion of Bill 6.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Is it the pleasure of the
House that the said bill be now read a second time?
All
those in favour, aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Ms. Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend
The Professional Fish Harvesters Act. (Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 6 has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act, read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by leave.
(Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that the House resolve itself into
a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and I do
now leave the Chair.
All
those in favour, aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act. (Bill 6)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 8
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 to 8
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 8 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The
Professional Fish Harvesters Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 6, An Act
To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act carried without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I move, Madam Chair,
that the Committee rise and report Bill 6.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 6.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr.
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Deputy Speaker.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to
report Bill 6 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters referred to
them and have directed her to report Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Professional
Fish Harvesters Act, without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
pleased tonight to stand as we continue the budget debate. Of course we are now
on the main motion which presents the budget to the House and the motion of
government looking for approval of this budget. I have to say this being the
last chance to speak specifically to the budget, we'll certainly have the
opportunity to speak to issues in the budget as we continue in the House all
spring because we have a number of legislative bills which will be enabling
changes that the government is causing, a number of legislative bills that we
will have to speak to. At that time, I'll certainly be able to speak to a lot of
the issues that are of concern.
Tonight
is the last time for me to speak to the actual budget and the approval of the
budget. So I'm going to be taking a bigger picture, I think, than I have been
taking so far in the debate. It's no secret that on this side of the House in
our party and I'll speak for myself we find this an extremely disturbing and
disappointing budget. There's nothing else that I can say. I would like to be
cheerful, but the budget itself gives no hope to people, and so I feel no hope
because we have a budget without any hope.
My
colleague, the representative for St. John's Centre made reference, when she
spoke last night, to the Alberta budget. The reason for doing that is that
Alberta is in a similar position to us; they have had a major hit in Alberta
because of the cut in revenues from the oil industry, as we have had. While they
are a larger province, population wise, and while they have a larger budget and
a larger economy than we have, at the same time the dynamic is the same.
They, in
actual fact, besides losing revenue, have lost 60,000 jobs from the oil industry
in that province. Some of those people are people from our province, but the
majority are not. They, too, could have put their head in the sands and say we
can't do anything. Instead of that and I've mentioned this already in debate
even though we know per capita their deficit is not equal to ours, in real terms
their deficit is over $10 billion. They chose to double their deficit in order
to give hope to the people. As my colleague for St. John's Centre mentioned last
night, the name of their budget was Alberta Jobs Plan. Well, I'd like to suggest that the name of our
budget should have been the Newfoundland and Labrador cuts plan because that's
what it's all about. It's all about nothing else but cutting.
The
government itself showed that when, in January, it put together what they call
the Government Renewal Initiative. That was a laugh and a half the Government
Renewal Initiative. When people went into the room and if you go on the
website, it's still there to take part in the consultations and the
discussions, some of which I know were very, very good, people really did take
part, what was the focus they were given?
The
first question they had to answer was: Thinking of all of the things government
spends your money on to provide residents of the province with services, what
are the three things that could be stopped in order to save money? Wouldn't it
have been nice if government had said: What is it that government does for the
people of the province in offering services that we have to keep and we have to
build up? Then, the second question: How do we do that?
No,
right from the beginning the notion was there, we've got to get rid of, we've
got to cut. So cut, cut, cut is the theme of the budget. Over and over again the
Minister of Finance has said that. Over and over again the Premier has said it.
What really is concerning is that the line by line that we've heard referred to
so often and the Government Renewal Initiative, in talking only about cuts,
totally ignored the fact that we need to look at not what to cut, but what to
keep because of our concern for people.
What is
it that we have to be concerned about? That is what is lacking in this budget.
Cut, cut, cut without looking at what does the loss of that service mean. Cut,
cut, cut without looking at what does the loss of those jobs mean. Cut, cut, cut
without thinking what does it mean to the communities to do what we're doing. As
far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely no analysis done by this
government of the impact of all the cuts they anticipated doing.
This
document in my hand is 9Ό pages. I've had this document in my hand before during
this debate. A lot of people out there probably have never seen it, people who
may be watching us tonight. I want to tell them about this document, because
what this document is it's a document which has almost 10 pages of the cuts
without any analysis of what the impacts of those cuts are. I'm certainly not
going to go through the dozens and dozens and dozens of cuts that are here, but
I'm going to go through some key ones and ask significant questions, questions
that weren't asked by this government.
The very
first department that's outlined here is Advanced Education and Skills. We have
quite a number of cuts in the Advanced Education and Skills budget. One of the
things, Mr. Speaker, is: Implement full student loans for NL students studying
outside the province in programs available in NL. It says: Program will be
modified and brought in line with similar programming in other jurisdictions
and it saves $563.
What is
the impact of that on the students from our province who are studying outside
the province? It doesn't matter why they're outside the province; they are our
students, they are our young people. And here we are punishing them because the
programs they're doing are also available here without any analysis of why they
may be doing that. There are all kinds of reasons why they may be studying
outside the province. So is there any analysis of the impact on keeping young
people here? No analysis of that. No analysis of the impact of what we're doing
to our young people.
Let's
look at another one, the closure of eight AES offices, the Advanced Education
and Skills offices; offices which are so important in the communities where they
existed. I'd like to point out that two of those are on the North Coast of
Labrador unbelievable. Two on the North Coast of Labrador where they are
isolated, I mean, it's unfathomable. Again, it says: This decision reflects low
uptake for services/low demand for programming. I've spoken to a couple of
those places and I've spoken to the former president of Nunatsiavut.
As a
matter of fact, we probably should notice here in the House that as of today
there is a new president of Nunatsiavut, and I wish Johannes Lampe well. I did
speak to the former president, and she told me the numbers in Nain in the AES
office there. Do you know what? It was a good uptake. So who put this together,
who decided that it was a poor uptake?
The
bottom line is these are isolated communities where you either have to fly in
and out of, or go by boat in and out of, or go by all-terrain vehicles, go by
Ski-Doos in the winter. We've shut the offices there, without looking at the
impact on young people and other people as well, of those offices, the need.
Then
let's look at travel: Implement limits on access to non-life sustaining medical
transportation benefits (i.e. reduce the availability of medical transportation
benefits to clients living in an area serviced by a public bus system; encourage
private vehicle usage I love that one and, implement an annual benefit
limit of $3000, with some exceptions). Saving $750,000, how is that impacting
people? How is that impacting people here in the city where perhaps there's a
bus system? But if they're going to the hospital because they're sick, is it a
bus that is the best thing for them to go on?
I've
seen people in the hospital; we've all seen them. People go there very often in
a very, very sick state. I know of circumstances one in particular quite
recently, I can't give any personal details where what happened to the
individual who had a bus ticket, rather than a taxi to get into, had a terrible
result. That's what this is looking at, putting people, probably who are very
sick, on buses, instead, for example, of letting them use a taxi. This is
unbelievable. It just goes on and on.
I'm
going to take another one from AES: Eliminate the apprenticeship scholarships
saving a whole $25,000. The reason for doing it is that it's duplication
between provincial programming and programs offered by the Federal Government,
private sector or community sector. No, it wasn't that it's duplicated; it's
that there was more money there to help people get a scholarship. I mean I can't
believe it. That's not duplication; that's having extra money so that more of
our young people in some cases not always young people can get scholarships
as apprentices. That was increasing potential in the province. The lack of
analysis of these cuts is just unbelievable.
I'm
going to stop for a moment doing what I'm doing because I want to hit another
point and I only have seven minutes left. I'm going to be able to raise a lot
more of this when we talk in the bills. I want to point out how cowardly this
government was with what they did in this budget. What they did was they cut
money to significant bodies who then had to make the hard decisions and the
dirty decisions.
They cut
money to the health authorities. What did the health authorities have to do?
They had to deal with the cuts to their operational grants. Mr. Speaker, we have
the Central regional health authority, their cut for this year is $420,500; the
cut to Eastern regional health authority, $12,954,700; to Grenfell, $785,000;
and to Western, $127,000. So they cut hundreds of thousands of dollars from our
health authorities and then left them holding the bag, left them with the ones
who had to announce the cuts they were going to have to make.
The cuts
at Eastern Health are immense. The things they've had to do in Eastern Health
are just unbelievable. I don't have time to go through every single thing here
tonight, but I want to mention some of it. We've heard some of it and we haven't
heard all of it. For example, where utilization is low I love this some
Mental Health and Addictions programs and services will be either eliminated or
be consolidated with other more comprehensive and targeted Mental Health and
Addictions programming.
It goes
on. This was the news release from Eastern Health: closure of a 10-bed
residential unit (N2B) at the Waterford Hospital
. Was there an analysis done
of what the impact of that was going to be on the individuals? They talk about
the fact that there are beds available in a long-term care facility, we know
that's Pleasant View I think it's called now. Yet we know that the beds there
there aren't enough beds to handle all of the patients or the residents who are
in the Waterford.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
No rational explanation,
except Eastern Health had to cut money. They had to cut over $12 million. So
they went scrambling and looking, and were forced to find things to do to save
that money.
Would
they have decided, for example, to close the 40 beds in Masonic Park without
being forced by the government? No, they would not have. I'm convinced they
would not have. Would they, for example, have done what they're going to be
doing now with the food? Food that can be prepared a couple of days ahead of
time and using microwave technology to heat it and trying to convince people
this is going to be fresher and it's going to be better to eat and they're going
to enjoy it more.
The
things they have been forced to do the loss, for example, of the positions in
the breast screening clinics. Under Eastern Health alone there are four
positions that are affected just in Eastern Health, four positions that are
affected. Those positions, yes, they're filled by nurses. They probably will not
lose their jobs but somebody's going to, because bumping will take place or
finding a new position for them someplace else. It won't be new people who will
be hired if there's an opening. I think there are two in Western as well. Six
positions are affected because of the money that government took away from our
health authorities. It's absolutely unbelievable.
They
make it sound so fancy, the whole thing of making our system more modern they
almost say. When what they're talking about, for example, is having to say to
people in Bonavista: If you need an X-ray at 3 o'clock in the morning because of
an emergency, you're not going to be able to get it in Bonavista. You're going
to have to go to Clarenville. That is unbelievable. It really is unbelievable.
Bonavista is not exactly around the corner from Clarenville. Some of the changes
they've made around that are not as hard on people, not as hard for people in
some other areas, but certainly the one in Bonavista is unbelievable.
What
this government has done, they downloaded onto the school board as well and the
school board has closed five schools. This government took no responsibility for
those closures, just like they've taken no responsibility for the Eastern Health
decisions. No responsibility at all. They've downloaded, they've made them make
the decisions. The school board closed five schools because this government told
them to do it. They told them to do it.
No
matter how much the parents and the communities of the schools that were
closing, no matter how much and how well they presented their case for the
schools not to close, it was completely they may have been speaking to a blank
wall because they got nothing back from the school board but the closures, and
no responsibility taken by this government. Letting them do the dirty work for
them while they say that was their decision. Just like they're saying the
library board made the decisions about the 54 schools. That's nonsense. They
were told those 54 libraries were closing and they went along with it because
they had no choice. This is absolutely unacceptable.
So here
we have these boards, these bodies, money taken away from them, directions given
to them and them with no choice but to do it. They're the ones taking the fall
while this government goes around trying to convince people that they don't know
what they're talking about, trying to convince people that you added up two and
two and got four. No, my darling, that's five. Don't you understand? Two and two
is not four, two and two is five. Let me show you how it's five. They think
people are stupid.
Well,
people are seeing through what they've done. This budget doesn't even deserve to
be called a budget. A bookkeeping operation this was, line by line, cut, cut,
cut. No vision, no plan for the future. Continuing to say in this budget that
our future is oil and gas, that's what I can't believe. The one bright spot in
that budget, the one thing they say, oh, but things are going to get better
because things are going to pick up in the offshore.
We're
where we are because we're depending totally on the offshore. That's the only
hope they offered in this budget. We will be voting against it, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to get up and have a few minutes to speak about the
budget. I wanted to respond to a few things that were said in Question Period
today and a few things that have been said in debate. I realize I only have a
few minutes to speak, so I'll try to get everything in.
I just
wanted to tell people that I had the pleasure of going up to the District of
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair in the winter to visit I don't know how many
schools it was. It was quite a number of schools I visited up there. We visited
a number of multrigraded classrooms.
In the
Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair's District, I went to one multigrade
classroom that had students in five grades in that classroom, Mr. Speaker.
Multigraded classrooms have been a feature of Newfoundland and Labrador
education since we've had Newfoundland and Labrador, since the very beginning,
the very inception of education in this province.
I
thought it was really interesting today when the critic for the Official
Opposition so I assume the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island
represents the view of the Official Opposition of the PC Party when he got up in
the House of Assembly today and said: Will you put a stop to multigrade
classrooms. I thought that was rather interesting.
I went
back to the department after the House of Assembly went into a recess, for the
break there before we met tonight, just to do a bit of a calculation on what the
Official Opposition is now asking of government. In September, there are going
to be 170 classes of multigrade students. These are not the combined-grade
classes that we're talking about having for September, these are the same
multigrade classes that we have had in Newfoundland and Labrador for decades and
decades, if not several hundred years of our history.
Assuming
that the average in a multigrade class is four grades and we've asked Members
from rural districts. I know there aren't any other than Fortune Bay Cape La
Hune across in the Opposition, so maybe that's why they don't understand this.
But we asked Members, we polled them about to talk to schools this evening and
find out how many multigrade classrooms.
So
assuming there are four grades in a multigrade classroom, then what the Official
Opposition is asking for, for September, is 500 more classrooms thereabouts,
approximately, and 500 additional teachers 500 new classrooms and 500 new
teachers. Because sometimes there's only one student in a grade, and that's why
we have multigrade classrooms, some of those classes, a whole large number of
them, would just have one student. That's what the Official Opposition wants us
to move now, to that system.
Five
hundred new teachers and 500 new classrooms, approximately, so that we can have
classes of one student; the teacher cost alone is approximately $45.6 million
approximately $45.6 million just for teachers. That is to say nothing of where
we are getting the money for 500 additional classrooms.
The
Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island, the Opposition critic, can laugh
and smile. He thinks it's funny over there, but I don't think it's funny at all;
$46 million ask just so that we can move away from multigraded classrooms.
He
thinks it's funny. He's laughing away with his colleagues over there. I don't
think it's funny at all, Mr. Speaker. We have a serious fiscal problem in
Newfoundland and Labrador today, and this is the kind of foolishness the
Official Opposition is consuming the time of the House of Assembly with. Get rid
of multigrade classrooms he said.
The
other thing that
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KIRBY:
There's something going on
over there, Mr. Speaker. What a racket.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the other thing
I wanted to say is that in addition to asking for $46 million to get rid of
multigrade classrooms for September it has nothing to do with the
combined-grades initiative that we've been discussing, that's entirely another
matter. The Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island said according to the
president of the NLTA, schools are being asked and I quote: Place good kids in
multigrade classrooms and kids with needs in other classes place good kids in
multigrade classes and kids with needs in other classes. And he said that's
insulting and disgraceful. Mr. Speaker, that is pretty disgraceful.
For the
Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island to stand in this House of Assembly
today and as I said, we have over 100 classrooms in Newfoundland and Labrador
today that are multigrade classrooms. In his perspective there are good kids in
multigrade classes and kids with other needs. I assume he means children with
disabilities are in other classes. That is, indeed, insulting and disgraceful
language to be used in the House of Assembly about children with special
education needs, Mr. Speaker. I have never heard anything like that in the 4½
years that I've been in here absolutely rotten.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
I'll take it a little bit
further, Mr. Speaker. He quotes the president of the NLTA. The president of the
NLTA has been out in the media talking about leftover students going to
combined-grade classrooms.
There
are no leftover students in this province! None of our students are leftover
students in this province!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
I am a father. Many of us
have children in this province. None of us would ever want our children, however
able they are, to be called leftovers.
There
are no leftover children in Newfoundland and Labrador today. That language is
not acceptable. We won't accept that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
We want an inclusive
education in this province where children, regardless of all of their abilities,
are accepted; they are included. There are no leftovers in this province and
there are no good students. There is no separation, there is no segregation.
If that
Member wants to go back to the days of Exon House, then he can go back. But we
are not going back there under this government, Mr. Speaker, I assure you.
I think
that language is unbecoming of the teaching profession. It is absolutely rotten.
We should never ever use that language to refer to children. I would never want
any child of mine referred to in that way. I say to the Members opposite, you
would never want your children to be referred to in such a disgraceful and
despicable way.
I'm
sorry, Mr. Speaker. This subject makes me very angry.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about another thing that came up here in Question Period
today. The Members are all concerned about libraries now. They're all concerned
about libraries. They all stood up and said, oh, the Liberals are doing this.
Well, how many libraries could you keep open for that? The Liberals are doing
that. How many libraries can you keep open for that?
I will
tell you, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you a tale that I've learned, since I've
become the Minister of Education, on the libraries in this province. Some
libraries located in municipal buildings in this province do you know what the
municipalities charge those libraries in municipal buildings? Zero, and some
municipalities charge libraries a dollar.
Do you
know the sweetheart deals the previous administration was entering into with
municipalities? Well, I'll tell you very much now and I hope the media pays
just as much attention to these details as they have of the others. The previous
administration got the Corner Brook Library they cajoled, as far as I'm
concerned. The Member over there for St. John's East Quidi Vidi talks about
how the government is controlling the libraries board. In this instance, as far
as I'm concerned, the last government cajoled the libraries board into entering
into a 20-year lease with the City of Corner Brook for their library. Do you
know what the amount of the lease was?
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. KIRBY:
It was $201,000 a year. For
how many years? Twenty years at $200,000 a year.
I'm
telling you some municipalities in this province charge zero and some charge a
dollar, and this crowd got us into a situation where the libraries board
assigned a 20-year lease to the tune of $201,000 a year for one library of the
95. How many libraries can you keep open for that?
I heard
one of the Members over there say, oh, well, it only cost about $23,000 for
operating. This does not even include operating. This is just a lease for 20
years; $201,000 a year. You have to add on the snow clearing. You have to add on
the Internet. You have to add on the operations. You've got to add on the IT.
You've got to add on the staff.
We're
talking one library in Newfoundland and Labrador, this crowd in their time, it
wasn't very long ago, over a quarter-million dollars. You could have 10
libraries in this province in rural areas for that price. That was the deal they
negotiated. So don't ever stand there and talk to me about how many libraries
you could buy for that.
It gets
better. This gets a lot better, I'll tell you that much. It's really rich,
because the last person to speak was the Member for Conception Bay South. He got
up in a sanctimonious tone and he lectured all the Members across here, all the
ones from rural areas, oh, stand up stand up.
Well,
I'll tell you, the next time he stands up I'll let him know the lease for the
CBS library, the previous administration in their absolute ignorance of what was
going on with the system, they also this is on top of the
quarter-million-dollar operation for the pet project in Corner Brook effectively
paying a mortgage for a new municipal building. On top of that, they got the
province into a 25-year lease in CBS. Do you know how much that is? It's
$230,000 a year just for the lease. That does not include staff. That does not
include Internet. That does not include IT. That does not include snow clearing.
We're up
to over a half a million dollars now for two libraries. Guess how many of them
are in rural Newfoundland? In Corner Brook and Conception Bay South, that's what
this crowd did.
In
Conception Bay South this deal is to pay not for the existing municipal building
for which the provincial government provided funding, this is to build an
entirely new building; a 25-year lease, $230,000 a year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
You calculate the operating
on this and we're talking $300,000 a year for one library.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
How many libraries in rural
Newfoundland if you're calculating them at $23,000 a pop, how many could that
provide? So don't ever stand there and tell me we're neglecting rural
Newfoundland. You should look around because
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
it's the crowd that sits
around you that negotiated this rotten arrangement for the library system in
this province. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to tell you right here and right today, if
there's any way to get out of these two leases, I am going to see that the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador gets out of it. I am going to see that
that happens.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
And every cent of the
savings, that half a million dollars, will go into the preservation of rural
libraries in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
That's what I'm going to do,
and you will never stand there again and lecture us about your failure, your
misgivings absolutely ridiculous.
So Mr.
Speaker, just to recap what happened here today, we had the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island stand here and tell us the new policy of the
PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is to basically go to one grade per
classroom instead of multigrade classrooms; to hire an additional 500 teachers,
approximately, 500 new classes, to the tune of $46 million a year; to absolutely
do nothing in terms of any of the research, anything that makes any sense in
this world when it comes to improving student achievement in classrooms. That
was the new policy thrown on the House of Assembly today.
We also
heard him talking about placing good kids in those multigrade classrooms with
kids with special needs in other classes. So basically endorsing a system of
segregation that decades ago Newfoundland and Labrador decided to leave in the
scrap heap of history, because we care more about our children than to use
language like that about them, I say. As a father, I would never stand for
anyone calling my child a leftover and I will never stand for anyone as
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, no one is going to stand
there and call children with special needs in this province leftovers. It's
never going to happen on my watch, I assure you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
The other thing that I want
to say and I apologize for being animated about this because it's difficult to
sit there. I have no problem listening to reasoned arguments from the
Opposition. It's a difficult job to sit over there and watch decisions being
made that you may have issues with, to watch decisions being made that affect
your district, to watch decisions being made that affect to children.
I say to
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, if you think it's funny that people
over there are making comments about children with special education needs, the
way that it's been made over there today, I don't think it's funny at all. I
think you should lower your head in shame over there; it's not at all funny.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
I tell you, Mr. Speaker,
again I go back to what I said before. The previous government got us into two
leases for two libraries in highly populated, I would argue, urban areas of the
province. They've sat there and they've decried the closures of rural libraries.
They've basically tried to shame Members on this side of the House of Assembly
saying that they weren't doing their job. Well, whose job were they doing when
they negotiated a 20-year lease with the City of Corner Brook to the tune of
$201,000 per year? That does not take into account anything, any snow clearing,
any other work, any IT, any books, nothing. That's just for the lease.
Then, on
top of that, their closing salvo as they left here, as they left this side, was
to lock this province into a 25-year agreement with the Town of Conception Bay
South for $230,000 a year and that also does not include anything else. I assure
you here today, Mr. Speaker, as true as the days are long, I am getting us out
of those leases and we will not be in that business at all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Those towns, they will give
us the same arrangements as those rural libraries, a dollar or nothing, or we
are having nothing else to do with it. I'm fed up with listening to this
nonsense from the other side. It makes no sense. They do one thing and they say
another. They went in and created the biggest fiscal mess that we have seen in
the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, built up a deficit just in one year of
$2.7 billion and they say we don't know. They sit there and say: Oh, how many
libraries could you buy for that?
Mr.
Speaker, I sat here earlier, that crowd had a $500,000 Population Growth
Strategy advertising campaign only directed to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. It cost $100,000 to produce and $400,000 to put on the air, and it
never went anywhere other than Newfoundland and Labrador. How many libraries
could you buy for that $500,000?
On top
of that, they had another previous Population Growth Strategy. They spent $2
million on an advertising campaign and not a single commercial ever went to air
because they didn't like the commercials.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KIRBY:
That's true.
They
spent $2 million on advertising for a Population Growth Strategy that went
nowhere because when they went up and looked at the ads, they said we don't like
these. That's $2.5 million on advertising for population growth and most of it
was never utilized. It goes on and on and on and on.
So I'm
willing to sit here and listen to reason. But there are two kinds of ignorance
in this world. There's true ignorance and there's wilful ignorance, Mr. Speaker.
One of those is people don't know the difference; the other one is when you know
the difference and you lead people down another garden path.
I'm sick
and tired of listening to this. I'm sick and tired of listening to this
despicable and unreasonable language about children with special needs and
multigrade classrooms that makes absolutely no sense. We will not stand here and
have that sort of thing said here in the House of Assembly. It is unacceptable
in the education system in the 21st century, and those people should know
better.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I
address the comments by the hon. Minister of Education, I want to acknowledge to
this House
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
I want to acknowledge to this
House our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Fort McMurray, with the
evacuation there, and we all know how many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are
there, so our thoughts are with those people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Hopefully they'll all be
safe.
I now
have to respond to the diatribe that I just heard from the Minister of
Education, Mr. Speaker. What he's just done is added to another approach here to
hurt the library system in our province. He's guaranteed he's going to close
down a regional library; going against what he stood for, what he said was going
to be their philosophy in addressing literacy in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
Going to close down the CBS
library, a regional library, and the Corner Brook library. So all of a sudden
now, all those feeder communities that are around there will no longer have it.
That's a threat. He just threatened two municipalities and probably 10 or 15
feeder communities here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
I know what it comes from.
He's right; he's sick and tired of hearing from the thousands of people in this
province who said he's doing an incompetent job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
The decisions made in this
budget are hurting people. They have no vision here. The minister has no concept
of what needs to be done. He doesn't understand the school system, doesn't
understand the literacy system, has no concept of the library system.
He talks
about the library boards. His department and that administration forced the
library boards into a corner, gave them five scenarios. Do you know what they
had to pick? This was the best of the ones that they were forced to pick,
on their forcing, their telling them how they had to cut it, how they had to
base it on a formula that was based on clinics in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador. Not based on the need for literacy, or the impact it had on
communities.
That's the vision this minister gave to people.
This is about controlling people. It's about making sure people did what he
wanted done, not what was in the best interests of the people. We talk about
dialogue and inclusion; never happened on his watch, I guarantee you that now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
That's coming out with the
hundreds and thousands of emails that he's receiving. There's no doubt he's
upset, as he calls it nonsense. You know it's nonsense if it's not in line with
his thought process. Maybe the Ph.D. is having a little hindrance on his thought
process, of what's right from wrong. That's becoming the issue here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
That's becoming the issue.
The time he got back and I've got a number of letters here and emails we'll
talk about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
That's right. We've heard
that. He knows what's best. It's time he walked into some schools and saw
exactly what blended classrooms are going to do, what the teaching process, what
the allocations talk to your teachers. Come to some of the public meetings and
explain to them it's not going to have an impact on the students here.
He talks
about all the good things that are going to go on. He hasn't done any of them
yet. As a matter of fact, he's done a hindrance here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
want to address the issues that were just brought up by the minister. There's no
vision here about how we address education in this province. There's no vision
about how we support young people. There's definitely no vision about how we
support our education system, our teachers and our administrators.
All the
decisions here are around closing schools, about not moving forward with
schools, about caps on teaching, about blending classrooms. It's an
embarrassment to think we're going to be able to move this province forward.
This is about a stronger tomorrow? It's an embarrassment to the people of this
province. As a matter of fact, it's an outrage. That's what we're hearing from
people, from administrators, from school councils, from the NLTA, from the
general citizens.
People
who don't even have a connection with the school system feel that this direction
is going in the wrong direction. It's because there's no thought process here.
There's no inclusion, there's no vision, and there's definitely been no
consultation. That's reflective in the letters we receive from teachers, the
letters we've received from the NLTA, the notes and that we're receiving from
students.
I'm
getting notes from seven- and eight-year-old students saying they don't want
their education to be hindered. They don't want to be separated from their
friends. They don't want to not have access to programs and services, in French
programs, recreation programs and all the things relevant within their school
system. It shows about not having any vision.
The only
thing that the administration on the other side is worried about is the bottom
line. Unfortunately, they don't have enough vision to understand if the bottom
line is not supported by the proper programs and services, the bottom line gets
worse. That's what we're seeing. The economists are saying it. The bond-rating
agencies are saying it. The general public is saying it. Their calculator, as
they look at it maybe they're not smart enough to catch on because God forbid,
we know we're not smart enough over here the way it's been explained to us. But
we know the people in this province are the ones who are going to be affected by
exactly what's being offered over there.
We talk
about the education system. Let's get back to it. Let's talk about our libraries
here. This is the same minister who said closing 54 libraries that are based on
the principle of offering programs and services that improve literacy in this
province will not have an effect on literacy.
Based on
what principle, based on what experiences? Based on what he's seen in this world
because nobody in the library world has seen it. Nobody in the education work
has seen it. I can't find any reports that show that. But he has the definition
and he has the vision to be able to say: We can cut them. It won't have an
impact. They can travel 30 minutes one way and 30 minutes back another way,
that's if they don't live on an island.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
Now, if they live on an
island, don't forget it's a lot different. If they live on an island they have
to find another way to get somewhere.
We have
e-books. Don't worry about e-books because we don't have broadband.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
People don't have computers.
They can't afford it, but don't worry about it. They'll come up with another way
to read. Don't worry about it, they'll go to a bookstore and buy them somewhere
if they can get off their island, get out of their community and pay their extra
10 or 15 per cent. That's if the bookstores are still open because the added
levies and all the added taxes imposed on them, they're going to say maybe it's
not even viable to even have a neighbourhood bookstore.
I went
to the protest last week by the publishers and the book owners. A lot of these
work on very small margins. A lot of these are in small hideaway closets where
they can provide a service, where people can come in and read, purchase their
books and then exchange books along the way. That will be eliminated too.
So we've
eliminated 54 libraries. We're going to put tax on books that people can't
afford. We haven't invested anything in broadband or any other access for those
rural communities that don't have the e-book access that's going to save our
literacy process. They eliminated all of that. Some of these small businesses
now are going to have to close. So we don't have that ability to do it.
We've
got a number of our own cultural writers who are saying this will kill their
business. The publishing business is saying it's going to kill them. They're not
going to be able to put out things. They put out things at cost, at times, for
agencies that are at a loss to ensure that our information gets out there and
that people have books and they have journals and these types of things to read
so that the information is shared. We're going to get rid of all that and that's
still going to improve literacy.
That's
the vision we have of this minister and this administration over here. That's
how we're going to improve literacy. That's how we're going to make sure the
next generation has more access to education and have a better ability to move
technology forward because we're going to cut all these things.
We
haven't got to the mainstream school system. We're going to bring in all-day
kindergarten, even though everybody every parent, every school council says
delay it. It's a great concept, we like it, but it's not the right time. We
cannot afford to do it now at the expense of the mainstream school system, the
one to 12.
The
vision would be to say you're right, let's hold back on it. Let's do what's in
the best interests of the existing students we have there. We can still work
within the kindergarten process to ensure there's a better way for them to get
play-based learning and other ways to be able to engage better literacy for
them.
But, no,
let's not do that. Let's put up cap sizes. Let's add additional work on
teachers. Let's do blended classrooms. Let's change our busing system so kids
can't get to school on their right time. Parents can't figure how they're going
to do it. Their after-school programs won't exist. Senior kids in one school,
because they are going to be an hour later, will not be able to mentor kids in
another school.
All
these things are going to enhance our literacy. With all those positive things I
can't wait to see what the next generation is going to be like when it comes to
their literacy abilities and their ability to move this province forward. We're
in trouble now; it's frightening what it will be like in a generation or two if
we let this administration move forward on the blunders they're making around
the education system.
It's
lost on people who understand the system how a minister can get up and scream
and bawl, and try to shake with one hand and punch with another hand on groups
because they didn't engage, they didn't ask the best way to do it. They didn't
say how can we best save money here to improve our system over there. They
didn't bother. They didn't bother to engage. They didn't engage the NLTA. They
didn't engage the library boards. They came in and said here. Here are five
scenarios; you pick the best of the worst ones because that's what you are going
to have to do as part of it. No engagement there, no process and no thought
process about it.
They
talked about here's our vision. Our vision is going to be about improving the
province. Not one program, not one initiative improves this province. There is
no doubt in the budget there are a few status quos. A great testament there,
keep doing those things. But the cuts that are coming to the other programs are
going to be more detrimental to the ones that they're supporting now. That's
where there is no vision here, no concept of where this is going to move as we
move forward.
I want
to talk about I've said this a number of times, this is an attack on young
people, particularly around education. It's also an attack on young people when
it comes to inclusion and their cost for things down the road.
Just
talk about a few things here that we're cutting out as an administration.
They're cutting out the Jumpstart program; $350,000. People may not realize in
some cases that seems like a lot of money, some it doesn't. In this case, it's a
lot of money for the return you're getting on the investment; $350,000 going to
young people. Five thousand young people are availing of that, to be active in
social, recreation and sports programs. It leverages three times as much money
into that program. That's money that goes back into those communities. It goes
back into your local arena. It goes back into your minor hockey and figure
skating. It goes back into actually creating jobs.
For
$350,000 you're getting a million-plus in direct revenue. You're getting 5,000
to 6,000 young people active, after-school programs, engaged in sports, engaged
in being a good active citizen, being mentors, being volunteers. There is the
vision here. This was an exercise with a calculator, let's start cutting where
we need to cut.
Let's
talk about some of the other things that they've talked about when it comes to
youth: implementing full student loans. The hon. Member for St. John's East
Quidi Vidi mentioned it earlier. We know what the students' unions have said
about this. It makes absolutely no sense.
We
fought so hard to get to a point where now we have access for students to
minimize their debt and actually be able to be more engaged in their education
system. We've moved that backwards again. We're progressively, as I read all
these, going backwards. We've just seen the vision from the Minister of
Education. It's all about going backwards in the education system.
Reduce
number of placements in the Linkages Program. For those who don't understand
the importance of the Linkages Program, it's about those young people who have
had some challenges in their life, be it academic, be it social, be it physical,
be it mental health issues, an opportunity to get back in a workplace with some
extra supports to get an understanding of what kind of careers they'd like to
choose and how they'd like to go, with the supports of mentors and, in a lot of
cases, community and community organizations. We've cut that, a small group of
people, the most vulnerable group.
The
minister talks about the vulnerable group. These are the ones they're cutting.
There's no vision here to help people. We won't even get into levies and that
stuff because that's in a big general context. That's going to affect everybody.
We're talking direct hits on people here.
Who sat
down and made these decisions and said, look, there are 25 young people from all
over this province it could be from the Englees of the world, it could be from
Twillingate, it could be from Bell Island who are not going to have access to
these programs and services. Even though we know they could be productive
citizens if we gave them an opportunity. It's not good enough; don't see it as a
good investment.
Discontinue the www.JobsinNL.ca website. We'll read a letter there later from
the library board that talks about it. Even with that jobs site gone, they were
offsetting some of that. That was going to be a hindrance because people were
using it. It was a benefit to people. It was a benefit to people who were
looking for jobs. It was a benefit to employers making that connection. So the
libraries board was going to connect it. That's gone again now.
Again,
it's about being regressive, not progressive. That's what this whole budget is
about, it's a regressive budget. It's by no stretch a progress of one. It does
more damage to every part of society than anybody can even imagine. We haven't
even seen the tip of the iceberg. Tell you what's coming in the next three to
four months, then we'll really see what state we're in here.
Reduce
and then eliminate funding for post-secondary scholarships. Minimum amounts of
money, but it was good incentives for people. It gave people an opportunity to
be able to further their education.
Eliminate apprenticeship scholarships. There was no vision there around what
that meant to the people in this province and the young people.
Reduce
funding for youth and student services. The federation of students, these are
things they provide with their supports, things that they enhance, things that
people have access to, but not good enough to put in. Nickel-and-dime money
we're talking in what we're saving.
Reduce
operational grant to Memorial University. It's going to have an unbelievable
impact on everyone. The same student who's going to get hit with all these other
cuts are now going to have to incur additional costs in the university system.
I can't
wait to see what's coming for CNA. I dread what's coming with CNA because I see
there's no vision around that process either.
Eliminate the transportation benefit under the Child Care Services Subsidy
Program. Again, another program that benefits young people and it's going to
have an impact on those who care for young people.
Increase
class size caps; we talked about that. We know everybody just wait, the
onslaught is starting. It starts tomorrow with the public meetings.
Every
jurisdiction, every school council are having it, because not one of them can
find in any way, shape or form how not even how it enhances the education
system, but how it doesn't put it back two generations. That's what we're
talking about now, the education going backwards. Not because of the skill set
of our teachers, who are the best in the world, or the administrators, who have
a great way to put things together and training and all the things that we do,
or the school councils who support it or the communities itself. It's about not
putting the right assets in place and putting people back when there's a process
in place that works. It may need to be enhanced in other ways. There may be,
obviously, new ways to move things forward, but this is regressive, putting
things back a generation or more.
Implementing the combined-grade combinations; as we've talked about. It's a
major issue, a major drawback. Nobody can see the benefits of it. I've got
testimonials from teachers who taught in other provinces and see no benefit from
it. They don't understand the process, no longer in the school system, out of
the school system, no vested interest. The vested interest that we're missing on
that side is the betterment of the students in this province. It's not happening
here.
Limit
provision of intensive core french through reduction in teaching services
budget. We're trying to integrate French society here. So we're making people
more aware of bilingualism and more access to opportunities. We're cutting all
these services. It's not good enough. It's not good enough if we want to make
the next generation, the young people who are going to take over this province
and guide us to the next century and have the skill set to be able to do it, but
particularly have the resources to be able to do it.
Let's
talk about some of the other things that have gone on in this administration
over the last period of time. Let's talk about the levies. We all know where
that's going now. We all know the backlash on that. We all know the impact it's
going to have on people. Let's talk about all the other increases that are going
to be incurred.
Let's
talk about some of the things that are hidden. When we talk about all the other
add-on fees that have been noted by this department or this government and are
going to be impacted particularly on young people, I think you missed this. I
added up here 35 additional fees connected to the trades or education in other
ways.
We're
talking about $2,000 being added to an institution who wants to start offering
ABE programs. Who do you think is going to end up having to pick that up? That's
going to be passed on to clients, to the students who may not be able to afford
to do that now with all these added costs. They're unbelievable the numbers that
are here, from a journeyman who wants to go in now, particularly with our system
now, or an apprentice to try to get a copy of their marks to try to do one of
the testings. The trade qualifier exam has gone up 40 per cent. Every one of
these fees is gone up.
If
you're in a particular category, particularly most young people who are coming
in this, you might as well add on another 10 or 20 per cent of your income
having to go for any one of these added fees here. Again, there's no vision.
This was added up. If you sat down and looked at it, there are segments in our
society. They're the working poor, they're the low income and they're the middle
class who will be hit 10, 15, 20, 25 times.
I
mentioned last week when I spoke, one of my constituents, 28 different hikes
he's going to have to incur just to maintain what he's doing on a middle income
here. These are the things we're doing. This is the vision that this
administration has here.
If you
go to build a house, it's not just the HST that's going to be added to it and
the other costs, but all the other things. All the different permits now, the
changes in fees. These are all hidden fees. They're out there, but people don't
realize it because they are so caught up with the bigger hits that they are
going to take. They're not going to realize, depending on what you do, you're
going to be hit again. The problem is people are not going to do a lot of it.
So
what's this going to do? It's going to stifle the economy again because people
will not invest. They will not invest because they won't be able to afford to
invest. They'll put it off and our economy will get worse and worse.
It's
unfortunate that when you're elected to government, particularly in the
administration that was elected on all these promises, their glorious promises,
I said it here in this House, I looked at the red book. If they had formed the
government, which they did, I came in here after getting elected and was looking
forward to them telling us how they were going to do all this. It was amazing.
All these great things they could promise. How they were going to deliver on
them. How they were the right things. It was going to make a stronger tomorrow.
They had a plan. It was going to be a great plan. We'd all be happy. We'd bow
down and say, wonderful job; a wonderful job for what you've done.
Well, I
can guarantee you, in the last three weeks we haven't seen a plan. Nobody has
seen it. I guarantee you the 20,000 people who've signed petitions, the 20,000
people who've sent emails, the thousands of people who've been on open line
shows and making noted to everybody about what's wrong with this administration,
I guarantee you are not looking at a stronger tomorrow and don't see any vision
that this administration has put forward. Particularly, anybody connected to our
education system.
It is
appalling what's being said. Sometimes it's actually embarrassing because they
realize now there's absolutely no vision. The leadership from the Minister of
Education is embarrassing. There's no way it's going to move anything forward.
There's not one good thing I'm hearing about our education system when it comes
to changes being made by this administration right now. I can't find one person,
I can't check one of my emails that will say that, even the people who supported
that administration, who signed for it.
I've had
people tell me, I voted Liberal in the last election. I'm an administrator with
a hospital. I now regret what I did, but I was sucked into what exactly they
were saying and I thought they had a vision for it. I wasn't sold on what your
administration had done in the past but I figured they had a better vision.
They'd do something different. They did something different already, I guarantee
you, they put us back another generation. If we continue to let them do this,
we're going to go back further and further.
Mr.
Speaker, I guarantee you, I will be standing up many more times being vocal on
this. I guarantee you that I'll be fighting for education. I'll be fighting for
our libraries, fighting for our AES offices and all the other things that are
important to the people of this province. I guarantee you, I will be voting no
on this budget.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear1
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I recognize the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, the
Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island in his opening remarks made
reference to Fort McMurray. We're just learning we still don't know the
details of that, but I'm sure that all Members of the House share in our
concern. I don't think there's a Member in the House who doesn't know somebody
living in Fort McMurray.
There are a lot of people from our province living there. We have family
and friends there, so obviously we share concern. Our thoughts are with them.
We're very concerned. I will give a brief moment for somebody from each of the
parties, if you wish, to recognize what's happening in Fort McMurray because of
the very strong connection to this province.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Obviously, I don't have anything prepared; this is all happening very
suddenly. I think many of us here in this House tonight, as we sit here, are
also getting messages on our BlackBerrys and on our computers, messages from our
constituents and our friends and our family who again and as you said, I don't
say there is anybody in this House or in this province that doesn't have some
kind of a connection, whether it's a direct family member or a friend or
somebody from their community that is in Fort McMurray or in that area this
evening. You only have to look at social media, look at a website, look at TV
right now to see the absolute devastation that is going on there.
I think it's only fitting that we here as the representatives of all the
individuals, all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but not only that we
are, in many cases, the representatives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all
over the country and all over the world that is who we think about all the
time; we all have that connection.
I'd like to think that our prayers are with those out there. We know that
we are in contact with our federal members to see what is going on there. We
know that we are speaking to our friends and our family to see what's being done
and to pass on whatever information we can get. Again, I know that the Minister
Responsible for Forestry has been in consultation with the province as well. I'm
sure there will be more information released as soon as we can get it there. I
know the minister is keeping on top of that and I look forward to hearing what
resources and what we can do from this province to aid in Fort McMurray right
now.
Again, on behalf of the Members on this side, but I think all of us, I'd
like to think that our prayers are with them. Let's hope for favourable weather
to help us with this. Let's hope for safety for our firefighters out there and
for our people out there, hope for the best and, again, hopefully we'll get some
positive news as we reach tomorrow morning.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I do appreciate you recognizing the situation we have in Fort McMurray,
Alberta. I certainly share with the Government House Leader and some of his
concerns. We, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, have a strong attachment,
obviously, to working elsewhere in the country and that connection is strong
with the Province of Alberta. Fort McMurray is often referred to as a second
home for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in many cases.
We, too,
in the Official Opposition hope the very best for the people of Alberta in the
Fort McMurray region in this time of need and difficulty and our hopes and
prayers are with the people there, the families. I acknowledge the words of the
Government House Leader when he mentions that the officials from our government
have been in touch with those in Alberta. I know if there's something we can do,
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, to assist them through this difficult time, no doubt we will do that,
as we're known to do in our history and in any difficult times in the past, not
only here in Newfoundland and Labrador but in Alberta.
Again,
as the night goes on and into tomorrow, we hope to hear good news in regard to
this tragedy coming under control and people being able to return back to their
homes. Again, on this side of the House, we wish the very best to the people of
Fort McMurray, for the emergency responders and those people that are there and
the work they do. We certainly wish them well in the work they do, and wish the
best to the people of Fort McMurray.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing the attention to it in the House tonight.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to echo what my colleagues have said on both sides of the House. It is my
hope as well that perhaps government can reach out and offer a phone number
where people from the province can get reliable information, timely information,
because I'm sure it's going to be difficult for some of them to be able to reach
their families.
Also,
I'm sure that a number of the first responders are also people from Newfoundland
and Labrador, so we thank them for their commitment and their help in this
really, really difficult situation. I'm happy that our government is reaching
out to the Province of Alberta. It is my hope as well that as a province we
would reach out and offer whatever help we can, even from a great distance, if
there's anything in particular that we can do to extend our help. We are all
carrying people in our hearts and family members in our hearts, because I know
many of us have family members there.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
thoughts, too, are with the people of Fort McMurray. My only living sibling is
in Fort McMurray, my sister. Many here on my team have met her. My beautiful
niece and nephew are in Fort McMurray. I have not been able to make contact with
her yet this evening, so that's very unnerving. Hopefully when I sit down and
she's a survivor and I'm sure she's somewhere okay. My sister went to Fort
McMurray, 36 years old and an extremely successful business person out there.
I'm
going to talk a little bit about our province and where we are right now and
where we hope to go because she, like many others in the province, left 16 years
ago with one goal, she wants to come home. Mr. Speaker, if we had not taken some
action right now, those people that moved away, they would not have a place to
come home to in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It's my
first time on my feet. I spoke to a PMR in the past, but it's my first time to
speak since the election. So it's an opportunity, never too late, to thank the
people that put you there. The people of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair gave me a
mandate when I went in in a by-election in 2013 and sent me back with a very
strong mandate, Mr. Speaker, again in November, one that I take very seriously.
We've
been accused I sit here and I listened over the last number of weeks. I listen
to Members try to provoke us and say where's your voice for rural, speak up for
your people, and you promised all these things and you didn't deliver. Well I
say, Mr. Speaker, to Members opposite and to whoever is watching tonight on
television that when I knock on people's doors and I've done it three times
now I promise one thing and that's to work hard on their behalf. I will
continue to do that.
It's
tough times right now. The Member of the Third Party got up tonight and talked
about the budget: cut, cut, cut. All she can hear is cut, cut, cut. Well, Mr.
Speaker, when you've had a decade of spend, spend, spend, at some point you have
to reign that in.
As we've
listened to the budget and as we've gone through the last two or three trying
weeks, I've reflected on my own household and how we manage our own household.
We all have a certain amount of money coming in, Mr. Speaker, and if you just
spend needlessly running up the credit cards and taking out loans wherever you
can get them, sooner or later that all comes to a head. If you don't take
action, you stand to lose everything that you have.
Mr.
Speaker, $2.7 billion; somebody said and the Opposition often accuse us of the
blame game, oh, you're looking back and you're blaming us. You have to look
back. You have to learn lessons from the past. Somebody said if you don't know
where you came from, you won't know where you're going. I think we all know the
mess that we are climbing out of right now.
Mr.
Speaker, we have a lot of new Members here. I haven't been around a long time
myself but, in 2013, when I came in, it was when I was continuously getting
feedback on Muskrat Falls. A lot of concerning things around Muskrat Falls:
contracts coming and going, money coming and going, nobody with a handle on
anything. We knew that it could not last. We knew that we would find ourselves
in a place where we would be in trouble financially, like we are today. A
province of just over 500,000 people, you cannot spend millions a day
completely mismanaged, nobody with a handle on it.
I'm
going to take you back for a moment to the beginning. I wasn't here for Bill 29,
but I certainly, like many others around the province, heard lots about it. I've
got to go back there tonight, Mr. Speaker, for a moment before I can move on.
When
they decided they were going to plow ahead with Muskrat Falls, the PUB and the
Joint Review Panel, the only two independent groups that were going to look at
this and see if it was in fact the least-cost option, they were denied the right
to do the review. The UARB in Nova Scotia had the luxury of a full review and
made their choices, but here in this province we did not have the luxury.
What did
they do? They brought in Bill 29. It caught national attention as the most
draconian piece of legislation to ever enter the Legislature. They brought down
Bill 29, they voted it in, they covered everything up, rammed it through,
sanctioned the project and here we are today billions and billions in debt.
By the
time this new government, a Liberal government, took the reins on the 30th of
November, Mr. Speaker, now choices have to be made around that project as well.
We have already spent we're committed to $6.6 billion. It is a lot of money in
a small province and, yes, we do need power. So I'm very happy with recent
changes that have happened. I'm happy with the work the Finance Minister has
done around this. I've heard nothing but positive feedback on Mr. Stan Marshall
at the helm, and I believe that whatever in the coming weeks comes out around
the Muskrat Falls piece is what will be the best and the most fiscally prudent
for Newfoundland and Labrador as we go forward.
Mr.
Speaker, I know the Opposition has to get up and ask questions. That's democracy
and that's important, but I'll tell you I cannot believe day after day the
questions they get up and ask when they got us where we are today in this mess
of a $2.7 billion deficit.
The
stories that come out continue to astound me; $500,000 for two libraries, Mr.
Speaker, and then they can stand up over there over the last number of days
I've heard, what about rural, where are the people that's standing up for rural.
Half of them over there wouldn't know rural if it smacked them between the two
eyes, but all of a sudden now they're concerned about rural.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'll tell you what's rural,
Mr. Speaker. Rural is when I get on a plane every Thursday night or Friday
morning and I fly for three hours into Goose Bay and then I get on a road for
420 kilometres. And I guarantee you it's not very good this time of year when
you're in the middle of spring thaw, when you're up and you're striking the
bottom of your vehicle and you have your two hands on the wheel. After a 4½
drive, I get to my destination in beautiful coastal Labrador, and that's rural,
Mr. Speaker.
When you
hear people out in the media saying they're 27,000 people and do we really need
to be putting all that money in for a Trans-Labrador Highway, I say, Mr.
Speaker, come up with me some weekend, come up and after your drive you tell me
if you think that road needs to be completed. I took the Minister of Education
up there in February. I don't know if he is over it yet, to tell you the truth,
four or five hours on an ice road, Mr. Speaker.
That
road is not just for the people of Labrador. That is a link that connects from
the Island and right down through
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Lane):
Order, please!
MS. DEMPSTER:
the main artery of Labrador
and into Quebec. So I'm going to be touching on things in this budget and, for
sure, I'm going to run out of time, I always do, but I'm going to be touching on
positive things. So while I'm talking about the Trans-Labrador Highway, this
budget that we brought down was a tough budget, Mr. Speaker. We're hearing from
our constituents. We're hearing from people around the province about the tough
budget. Tough choices had to be made.
But, Mr.
Speaker, I was elated that the Cabinet that sat at the table and deliberated,
and Premier Ball, even during this tough time, they did put $63.7 million aside
for the Trans-Labrador Highway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, $63.7 million;
that is going to be used to leverage federal funds to match. They recognize that
there has been a disconnect from the Island to Labrador. We are a long time
getting to where we need to be, but I am encouraged in tough, tough economic
times when I see commitments like this.
Another
part of my road, 40-year-old pavement in the Labrador Straits, Route 510, from
L'Anse au Clair, the southern part of my border, down to Red Bay. Many, many
times I stood on my feet and I petitioned in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker,
I was so frustrated that just before Good Friday one year, I was just thinking
someone is going to be killed, someone is going to lose a life, and I actually
said whose hands over there is the blood going to be on of the person that gets
killed strong language, Mr. Speaker, that's the pressure I was feeling. I was
driving the road every day, 40-year-old pavement. Somebody alluded to it
tonight. Districts were getting new pavement put on good pavement when we were
fighting still in some places for our first.
I'm
delighted that the Minister of Transportation and Works I know I drove him a
bit crazy since December, but when the budget came down, he delivered. He had a
lot of tough choices to make. Mr. Speaker, I brought him up in January. He saw
first-hand how bad the road was. He saw that it was a safety issue. He's made it
a priority. He gave provincial funds to that and I thank him very much for being
fair, for taking the politics out of pavement
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
and, Mr. Speaker, he's also
put requests forward to leverage federal funds. So I say to the good people of
the Labrador Straits that the start of the upgrade of your road is coming, it's
started and I want to thank the Minister of Transportation for that.
Mr.
Speaker, I come from a background of I spent a lot of years in municipal
politics. As deputy mayor, I had the privilege to represent all of the
communities in Labrador on the provincial municipalities board. I know the
challenges that these small towns are dealing with. These councillors that
volunteer give of their time, endless hours, because they want to play a little
role in making the place that they live and they call home better.
It's not
always easy, Mr. Speaker, when you have aging demographics, you have seniors on
a fixed income. So you only have so much revenue coming in, then you have to
make choices and you have your expenses. A lot of times you have to make
decisions, like maybe to cut off someone's water. In a small town I always say
because we usually get our groceries on Saturday night in these small
communities you have to line up and get your groceries Saturday night perhaps
with the person in the lineup ahead of you that you had to disconnect their
water because they couldn't pay.
Mr.
Speaker, these small communities have a lot of needs, a lot of infrastructure
needs. There are still communities where seniors don't have good drinking water.
There are sewer issues. I'm delighted that again in these tough economic times
the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the budget stayed the same: $22 million for
Municipal Operating Grants. I know that many communities in my district
especially that have capital works applications submitted are anticipating
getting some projects. I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs have also
put in requests to Ottawa and he is going to leverage federal funds where he
can.
Also, I
want to mention the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement and the Seniors'
Benefit. We talked about the aging demographics in this province. By 2025, one
in every four people will be a senior. Mr. Speaker, that's going to bring its
own set of unique challenges to this whole province with all of these people
that are aging. It also means that there are all of these people now that are on
a fixed income.
Mr.
Speaker, when we took government in November and we actually learned of the
staggering deficit, we were at a place where when you are tittering on
bankruptcy, when the people on Wall Street that lend this province money, when
they're saying we have to change you from stable to trending negative, tough
choices have to be made. But what happens if there is no action taken?
I don't
know if this message has gotten out to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
the way it should. What happens when no action is taken? You throw your hands up
in the air and you say we can no longer govern our own province. We have no
money to provide services in our own province and then another province takes
over or the Government of Canada takes over and we cannot govern.
I say
that would be an extremely sad day for Newfoundland and Labrador. When we look
at the accumulated debt of around $11 million, how it took us 66 years to get
there but in the next five or six or seven that would double, that staggers my
mind, those figures.
While
tough choices had to be made around this budget, it was imperative, it was
incumbent I think somebody said they would rather be here one term and do the
right thing than to be here for longer doing the wrong things.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, they can stand
on the other side and say where are you, why aren't you standing up and voting
no against this budget. Don't you care about the people? Well, I want to say
tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I'm getting to know a lot of my colleagues, a lot of
them are new, but these are first-class people that stepped up because they care
about the districts that they represent.
They
knocked on doors and they asked people to give them their support. I see them
every single day working hard on behalf of the people that they represent. So
don't stand up over there and say vote against this budget and vote against your
own government.
Mr.
Speaker, we passed a bill tonight, Bill 6, the
Professional Fish Harvesters Act. I would have loved to have spoken
to it. I come from a strong fishing district. I've been in the fishing boat
myself too; that's how I started out. That's where I found the good money was
when I was a teenager. I had a choice that I could stay in the store coming from
a business family and operate the cash register, or I could go jigging in the
boat, and that's where the money was back in the good ole day, I say.
I want
to use the analogy of a ship, given my background and my history. I still do a
lot of boating in the summer. We have a little 35-footer. We go up north, the
most beautiful place in the world driving in boat up to the North Coast of
Labrador to the Member for Torngat's District.
When we
came on this side, we did not cause this problem, but we inherited the problem.
I was thinking about that this morning as I was thinking about speaking. I
compared it to a ship. We were going down so fast, Mr. Speaker, you couldn't
bail fast enough. That's what happened; you couldn't bail fast enough to get the
water out. That's where we were headed as a province and we haven't fully
corrected it. We have taken some extreme measures, but all we have done is
stabilize the ship. Stabilize the ship because that's how bad it was.
We still
have a deficit of $1.8 billion, Mr. Speaker, in a tiny province.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, $1.8 billion in
a tiny province of 500,000 people, many of which are seniors. I have confidence
in the people at the helm. I have confidence in the people that are making the
decisions. Tough choices, but the sun will rise again. The ship will become
strong again. We will sail into open water again and we will enjoy many more
sunny days.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, because tough
choices had to be made, around our table we are always thinking about the
disadvantaged in society. We are always thinking about those on income support.
We are always thinking about the seniors. Many, many times our current Speaker,
the Member for I just forget where he's from
AN HON. MEMBER:
Waterford Valley.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Waterford Valley would
stand and speak on behalf of seniors because we care about seniors and we know
that they can only stretch their cheque so far. It would concern us when we
would hear about seniors in the malls because they couldn't afford to have the
heat up in their home.
Mr.
Speaker, what did my government do to address some of that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. DEMPSTER:
A couple of initiatives: the
Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement, the new quarterly Income Supplement
provides good, supportive measures to soften the impact of tax changes on
low-income earners. There's a calculator that's put out.
Many
people are calling my office very concerned about the tax increases and all of
the fear mongering that they're hearing. Once we explain to them, once we find
out what their income is and we explain, most of the ones that we have talked to
are actually going to be financially better off. In addition to the new
Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement that's going to be paid out
quarterly and I might add, Mr. Speaker, eligible residents will not have to
fill out any new paperwork or navigate their way through red tape. So that was a
big relief for them. If they file a tax return and their income qualifies, they
will automatically receive quarterly payments to offset the tax increases. But
in addition to that, we put in place a Seniors' Benefit.
The
budget also provides additional support for seniors. With the enhancements to
the existing Seniors' Benefit, low-income seniors will be eligible for an added
payment that will complement their quarterly payments from the new Income
Supplement.
Mr.
Speaker, this means that for our seniors there are two separate measures in this
budget, two separate measures meant to offset the impact of the tax increases.
For the people watching tonight
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. DEMPSTER:
too, I want to say as well,
when they talk about
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. DEMPSTER:
we've gone and we've hiked
the taxes so
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker has asked for
order.
The hon.
the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, they talk about
the taxes and how we've hiked everything to death. Actually, what we've done is
only gone back to 2006-2007, still very competitive taxes, making us the third
most competitive in the country.
I'm
running out of time and I had so much more to say. I want to mention the levy
and all the talk around the levy. Mr. Speaker, the levy is going to give $126
million a year. Because of all the wastage and the mismanagement and how badly
they bungled, measures had to be taken. But I want to say to the people, 38 per
cent of the province will not be paying for the levy, and 43 per cent of those
who are paying will be paying less than $340 a year. This year, Mr. Speaker,
that's only half of that $170.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
We know that any time you
have to make increases people hurt, Mr. Speaker, and we've tried to share it
around, but the levy is a temporary measure. I look forward to having other
opportunities to talk about all of the wonderful things in my district and what
I hope to do going forward for the people that I represent and the legacy that I
want to leave for them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this
time, I would move, seconded by the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and
Rural Development, that this House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that this House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Contra-minded?
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until 2 o'clock tomorrow, being Private Members' Day.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2 p.m.