May 3,
2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 12
The House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
I call for the Order Paper, Motion 1, the budget.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
It's certainly a pleasure of rise this morning to
speak to Budget 2017. Over the last
couple of days, we're heard from a number of Members, certainly a lot on this
side, in regard to Budget 2017.
Before I speak to that, I just want to take a minute
to recognize that last week was volunteer appreciation week, and I just want to
recognize all the volunteers all across the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador on the great work they do, but certainly in the District of Ferryland,
my region, from Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, the Goulds region which is part of
the City of St. John's, south to the small community of St. Shott's on the
Southern Avalon, and all the great organization groups and the work they do to
drive our communities, to drive our regions and to sustain our regions.
That's everything from school councils to volunteer
fire departments to municipal leaders, either municipalities, local service
districts, and everything in between. They do tremendous work in our communities
and our regions and it's certainly a great week to recognize them for all the
activities they do and the contributions they make to, as I said, our
communities. Most of them don't get remuneration. They do it because of the love
of their community, the love of the province and the fact that they want to give
back. I think it's extremely important.
The other side that is quite interesting we see
today, seeing more of it, is young people being involved in various roles and
various opportunities, various avenues in terms of giving back to their
community. A lot of that certainly starts at the school level, in high school.
You see youth now that are involved, as part of the curriculum, to give back
volunteer hours, to get involved with their community and to get started at a
very early age. I've seen it first-hand with youth from our schools who get
involved with various activities. It starts that process of civic duty and
giving back to your community and it's certainly good to see.
I congratulate our youth, our youth groups and those
who get involved and the work they do because it is so important, starting at a
young age. As we know, most people who get involved in activities like that, if
you get involved at an early age, it's something that becomes a part of your
life, a part that you allot time for as you go through different stages of your
life. It's good to get started early and see that giving back to the community.
I certainly congratulate them as well.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we're undertaking, over the
last couple of days and into the next few weeks, to talk about
Budget 2017.
Obviously that flows out of
this administration's first budget, the budget of last year and some of the
issues that they dealt with and how they dealt with them.
I guess
the biggest one last year was looking at the balance sheet, looking at
expenditures, looking at revenues. This government chose a route that wasn't
very balanced and I think everybody, far and wide, since that time has assessed
it, seen the results of some of those decisions and what it meant in regard to
effects on the economy, effects on individuals, effects on seniors, effects on
middle-class families. Then there's a trickle-down effect in terms of the
overall economy and what it means for young students, I mentioned earlier, in
terms of decisions they make in regard to staying here in the province, will
they go elsewhere; middle-class families, young families just starting out
having children and as well those who do have kids that now may be in the school
system, depending on job opportunities, things like taxation, their ability to
stay here and what they can return to, the kind of life they can build with
their family.
All of
that rolls into decisions they make in regard to whether they stay here in the
province or what they would do. That's driven and those choices are strongly
connected to the choices made by any government in budgets in terms of economic
or social policy and how that effects directly those people who live in the
province. It's all interconnected.
I think
it was yesterday, maybe the leader of the Third Party, when she spoke, she
talked about economic indicators. Those, indeed, are a snapshot of what's
happened in the past year and what's predicted to happen in the future year to
come in regard to the opportunities. The economy, is it going to bounce back?
What's the plan of the current administration and how do they plan on getting
there and getting through a rough period in regard to things that have affected
our fiscal situation, particularly related to oil and the dramatic reduction in
oil price and the loss of revenues? That's one component of it.
That's
all interconnected and it's important that people have confidence. When they
look to government, they can say okay, we're dealing with a particular set of
circumstances, this is the way forward, we can see it and, at the end of the
day, we see a result of where we're going to arrive at or to.
I think
most of the commentary we've had over the past 17 or 18 months, since last
year's budget, has been that clear path or that plan hasn't been articulated.
It's not understood. Somebody would even say we're not even sure if there is a
plan, and that caused grave concerns for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Because overall, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are an optimistic people,
certainly very innovative over 500 years of our history here in this province,
prior a country of Newfoundland, we've always been innovative and we've always
been able to adapt whatever the circumstances, and that's in our history.
And the
optimism comes with that, I think, because whatever the challenge, we're always
able to seize the opportunity, take advantage of whatever challenge it is and
turn it into something positive for the province. So we are optimistic.
Unfortunately, with Budget 2016, I
don't think it relayed that optimism tied it to a plan and said based on the
current circumstances, here's the way forward, there are opportunities, we need
to see our way through a difficult time and here's a balanced approach to see us
through.
We did
see, I think, over 300 in terms of new taxes and fees which stifled many of
those indicators I talked about earlier, which is the budget documents, I think
The Economy 2017. It looks back at
2016, what transpired there in regard to indicators and what we're predicting
for 2017.
That's
where the optimism and the plan comes in and you have a balanced approach in
terms of dealing with it, that all comes together to be able to articulate a
vision for the province and see us through whether it's two years, four years or
10 years out.
I talked
about optimism and opportunities that exist in our province and some of the
things that we've built on in terms of our administration over the past 12 or 13
years, you have to take advantage of opportunities as they exist whether that's
intellectual knowledge, technology, natural resources, innovation, the IT
sector, film industry, tourism industry which has been so important to this
province that we've grown significantly to almost $1 billion obviously we've
been recognized nationally and internationally for the program we had started in
regard to the development, the advertising campaign and how effective that's
been. We need to continue to build on that, but that's a part of what we have
and what we've developed.
So we
look at some of these in regard to opportunities and how we continue that
optimism our natural resources, certainly with our fishery, some of the
challenges we're dealing with today have been coming for a while especially when
you look at the transition that's well, not started in regard to shellfish and
going to a ground fishery. We need to be ready and prepared to do that.
Unfortunately, I don't think we're ready and prepared as we should be. Because
when we went through a process a number of years ago and the EU wanted to get
involved in a trade agreement with North America and with Canada, they saw the
opportunity and so did we in regard to that huge market in the EU and the
ability to trade, to import-export. If you go back and look at our history in
terms of we've been an exporting nation and an exporting province as part of
Canada. It's a huge part of who we are. Certainly with our commodities and
natural resources it's extremely significant.
So
within that process there are many opportunities; overall procurement, IT, oil
and gas, all kinds of areas. The one I'll talk about now is the fishery and what
that means and what it will mean in terms of driving economic activity. There's
a huge market in the EU; big consumers of fish, even traditionally going back to
Spain and Portugal and the salt fish trade many, many years ago. It's still
sound today in regard to salt fish, but obviously other commodities too going
into that market.
Especially in the UK, look at the amount of shrimp that's gone into that market
over the past decades and decades. What's coming off with the EU, the trade
agreement, is that those tariffs would come off and make it obviously much more
beneficial to get in. Now there's a cap. You can put so much resource in and
then it's capped and you're hit with a tariff. Obviously, from a business model
point of view, that causes concern once that tariff is done. So that would be
removed under the new trade agreement.
One of
the elements of the trade agreement that we recognized well along was in regard
to the ability to promote and help the transition of the industry, which we're
facing today. Back then in 2014, that's why we agreed, along with the industry,
to relinquish minimum processing requirements. That was one of the provincial or
sub-regional authorities that was available to the provinces in regard to
national or international trade agreements. So the federal government could go
ahead and make a trade agreement, but there are still areas of provincial
jurisdiction that the province still has the authority of the whole of that
regulatory framework.
When the
EU started with Canada and wanted to engage in a discussion on trade, the EU
wanted the subnational or provincial issues resolved because they didn't want a
trade agreement put in place after the fact. Where if a provincial jurisdiction
still upheld the regulatory framework for trade, that there would be a trade
dispute and it would have to go to some kind of trade tribunal where there'd be
a challenge made, and if that challenge was lost or won, depending on what side,
there would be a monetary possibly penalty and there would have to be a payout.
The EU
wanted all that done. They wanted those to be resolved and all those regulatory
frameworks to be done, whether it's dairy in Ontario, wines in Central Canada,
whether it's whole logs exported out of British Columbia, all of that. They
wanted all of those dealt with.
In the
process of being part of that discussion and the bilateral discussion between
the provinces and Canada, we talked, and I talked about the fishery. We talked
about how we could take advantage of that. Certainly we have unprecedented
access, over a three-year period once the agreement is signed, to get into those
markets and to allow that unfettered access for all fish species for
Newfoundland and Labrador.
That's
the other component. Traditionally we talked about a couple of species, maybe
groundfish, shrimp, crab, but there's a whole range of other species that we
need to look at. I know there's some work going on at the Marine Institute and
others to expand that, but in the overall fish supply of the world and protein
from fish, we're very small, maybe a couple of percent of what goes into the
world market. There are more opportunities for us. We need to explore that, and
that's the optimism and opportunity we have with the fishery.
In
negotiating Canada with the EU, in regard to the overall trade agreement and the
bilateral discussions we had with Canada in terms of before they went and had
overall discussions on the international trade agreement, we recognized that
what was being said in science, what was being said by those involved with the
industry, some of the quota cuts and what was going on with shrimp and crab, we
recognized there was a downturn coming in the shellfish industry.
Because
of that, and after meeting with industry, we said if we relinquish the MPRs we
would engage in a process of five pillars with a $400 million fund that would
help that transition; that would start that process. That should be started
today. We should be well into it with that fund and started that process of the
transition, and we recognized it.
In the
five pillars, there were things like research and development, innovation, a
marketing component looking at if there was any loss in some of that discussion
in regard to MPRs. So all of that would be considered, but the thing was to
transition in and make sure we could take full advantage of the market, the new
market, but also recognize that if we have to transition into other species,
there's technology, innovation, research. All those things need to be done. I
talked about other species. That would be one part of it, and what else you
could put in to those new markets and elsewhere around the world. All of that is
part and parcel of that transition and being ahead of the curve.
What we
have now, we're in the middle of all of this, the current administration we
were criticized for not having a commitment from the federal government. In
actual fact, the federal government bilaterally control the rules. To the best
of my knowledge, there was no agreement signed with any province, but we did
have, and we ensured we had, 200 to 300 pages of documents that clearly
indicated the discussions over a period of time with the federal government,
what the end result was. We laid all that out for people to see. Here's the
documentation. Here's what was agreed to. It was quite clear what it was. It was
a $400 million fund, five pillars to look at exactly today what's happening and
the transition to have support to allow it to do that.
What we
have, which is not that fund, we've got apparently a $100 million fund. We don't
know what the ratios are. I think in Estimates a while back, my colleagues tell
me, the current minister responsible said it could be 70-30; it could be 60-40.
We're not really sure. The fund hasn't started to flow. There's no indication of
the administration of that fund, what programs it would be or anything of that
nature. So we're not where we need it to be.
The
other point was the current prime minister, when he was leader prior to the last
election, the prior premier of the province wrote, asked him to clearly indicate
where he stood in regard to the $400 million fund. He clearly articulated in a
letter back to the current Premier of the day that he would support it and
Newfoundland and Labrador should receive what they were promised; but, as we've
come to learn, in actual fact what happened, we didn't get it. We got rumours of
$100 million, and how we leveraged that we don't know. It's not active today or
nothing has been done with it.
In the
budget, I think there's somewhere in the range of $10 million to help leverage
that. So it's a far cry from the $280 million commitment that the federal
government had made, that the province would use their $120 million to leverage
that and to move forward.
Now, we
also heard two explanations. Well, we're getting money for small crafts and
harbours. We're getting money for search and rescue. Well, that's a different
envelope of money. As Canadians and part of this federation, and being a coastal
province on the East Coast of Canada, we get our fair share of every envelope of
money. We get that anyway. Don't tell us be happy, you're getting some money
from the fund that other coastal province and other communities get. We get it
anyway. We should get it and it should be improved. We should continue to get
it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Don't say to us, well, you're
getting enough, be happy with that.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are never happy just to get a share. They want
to get their rightful share just like the rest of Canadians. This fund was
agreed to. The current administration both here and in Ottawa has failed in
terms of delivering on what they said they would deliver on. Today, with the
transition going on in the fishery, we're no further ahead and we don't have any
help for that.
The
budget was certainly disappointing in that regard, in looking at the amount of
money that was put there to leverage, a far lesser amount of $100 million.
Hopefully as we go through the budget we'll get some more insight on where
that's to and how we continue to see what the details are, even though it's much
less than what was originally planned for.
The
other issue, I'll quickly mention is, I'm very disappointed again in this year's
budget that an educational infrastructure in my district that was approved in
2015 was cancelled last year, and this year again there's no reference to it,
and that's the new middle school for the Witless Bay Mobile school system. In
2015, based on concrete evidence, based on good analysis, based on a
consultant's report, it was very clear that the best option was a middle school
for the region. Last year it was cancelled. This year again there's no reference
to it.
There's
some plan. They came up with nine classrooms to build on the high school in
Mobile. To date, there's another consultant hired, spending money on it, and
they can't figure out whether they can even put it on the footprint or not. The
word I'm hearing is they can't. We have no idea where this came from.
We met
with the Minister of Education. He questioned, I think even to the families, why
people would want to continue to move to the region, which was somewhat
insulting to the parents and to the community. We know there has been
significant growth over the past 10 years. Again, we've asked questions. We've
been to the English School District asking them to vote down the reconfiguration
because they never voted on the new nine classroom extension but have voted on
the new school, and those are issues that are still important under the budget.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a pleasure for me to rise this morning and to have my say on the
budgetary process that we're going through. I guess it's time we cut through the
rhetoric and the mantra that's out there that this budget is bad; it's the same
as the last one. We have no plan. We don't know what we're doing. We're not
accountable and all this good stuff.
Well, I
guess if anybody is following the news this morning they would have seen that an
institute by the name of C.D. Howe released a report on Newfoundland and
Labrador that gives us all kinds of kudos for being accountable and having
numbers that we can trust, and basically saying that we as a government and the
Finance Minister, the Premier and the Cabinet have done a great job in getting
us out of this financial mess that we found ourselves in back in 2015.
The
report, Mr. Speaker, is evident of that. Allow me the time to go to a few brief
highlights of what the report says. The title in itself speaks volumes. It says
the summary of the C.D. Howe report of Numbers You can Trust?
AN HON. MEMBER:
What?
MR. LETTO:
Numbers You can Trust
that's a big word and, The Fiscal Accountability of Canada's Senior
Governments, 2017.
I'm not
going to go through all the provinces obviously, but I am going to highlight
Newfoundland and Labrador and try to paint a picture that the sky is not
falling, the chickens aren't gone to roost and that we are doing things right.
We are being fiscally responsible and trying to deal with the mess that was left
to us by the previous administration. It's not all doom and gloom like the Third
Party would lead you to believe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
This report, Mr. Speaker, is
concerned with the relevance, the accessibility, timeliness and reliability of
government financial reports. The report analyzes three principal financial
documents: the budget it presents at the beginning of the fiscal year, the
Estimates legislators vote to approve specific program spending and we've all
been through the Estimates. We know how the information comes out in Estimates
that really, really tells a story that we are being fiscally responsible, and we
are putting forward a new philosophy that some people are finding very difficult
to understand, and that's the zero-based budgeting. It's very difficult for some
people to grasp that and that it's actually a good way of being financially
accountable and the audited financial statements in the public accounts that
report the year-end results.
The
approach of this report is to locate the spending and revenue totals displayed
prominently in budgets and in Public Accounts and ask several questions about
them. So this is what's being done. These questions are mainly focused on the
revenue, spending and balance figures of the budget, whether the Public Accounts
present a comprehensive set of revenue spending and balance figures and the
overall quality of financial reporting.
So, Mr.
Speaker, C.D. Howe, they've been around for eons. You've heard of the C.D. Howe
Institute. They are a renowned institute in Canada that are well respected for
what they do. So let's bring it closer to home.
Improvements, that's the first thing that comes out in this report is
improvements in the Newfoundland and Labrador accountability. We're heard from
the other side how we're not being accountable. We're not being transparent.
We're putting out numbers that don't make sense. We're trying to hoodwink
people; all that good stuff, all that mantra.
This is
the message that the Opposition is trying to put out there. I note that some
people on the other side have acknowledged that there are some good things in
this budget. They won't go as far as to say it's a good budget. Basically, the
mantra is that it's a continuation of 2016, the 2016 budget. It is institutes
like this that really, really shows that that's not what this is all about at
all.
Let's go
back for a few years. We'll go back to, probably, '08, '09. We all know who was
in power at that time. In the 2012 fiscal accountability report, Newfoundland
and Labrador was ranked among the provinces that do not, do not, present
straightforward or comparable figures in their budgets or Public Accounts.
AN HON. MEMBER:
When was that?
MR. LETTO:
In 2012.
AN HON. MEMBER:
2012. Who was in power then?
MR. LETTO:
I think I know, but I'm not
sure.
The lack
of fiscal accountability was constant. The lack of fiscal accountability was
constant in Newfoundland and Labrador from 2011-12 to 2015-16 where Newfoundland
and Labrador was consistently the lowest ranking among the provinces in Canada.
Now, can
we wonder why we were left with such a mess when they weren't even accountable
to their own figures, to their own budgets? To compare that, in 2016-17
Newfoundland and Labrador notably improved the consistency of its headline
budget and Public Accounts figures. In fact, in 2016-17, Newfoundland and
Labrador received an accountability grade of B, marking a significant
improvement from the failing grade of let's see of E E as in elephant in
2015-2016.
Mr.
Speaker, we've been saying it since we took office in December of 2015 that we
were left with a mess. It's no wonder when you talk about the lack of fiscal
responsibility the Opposition was trying to put forward a deficit of $1.1
billion and we took office, the first thing that we saw was a $2.2 billion
deficit. If we had done nothing in 2016-17, it would have been a deficit of $2.7
billion.
So you
wonder why that happens. You've got the institutes like C. D. Howe confirming
what we been saying since we got elected, that we were left with a mess and this
province was on the brink of bankruptcy. If nothing had been done it would have
been I don't know what's the word to use
AN HON. MEMBER:
Devastating.
MR. LETTO:
That's one word.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Crisis.
MR. LETTO:
It would have been a crisis.
There are several words that we could use.
Mr.
Speaker, they go back a few more years, and I want to highlight a few more
because it's not only 2015-2016 that they failed miserably, not only then. In
previous reports, inconsistent figures in its budget and Public Accounts
resulted in a failing and consistently low accountability grades. You wonder why
our Finance Minister stands on her feet in this House and argues every day, day
after day, that the job that she was faced in December, 2015 was daunting.
Now, C.
D. Howe, the report has found that those same numbers to be consistent and
resulting in higher financial accountability in the province. This is not just
some ordinary group out there saying it is. This is C. D. Howe Institute we're
talking about, one of the most renown, prestigious financial institutions in
this country, Mr. Speaker.
The one
area in which the report marks potential improvement is with consistency,
consistency in the preparation of Estimates. So, Mr. Speaker, we are doing
things right. They go on to say the difference in budgeted and actual
expenditures, which is, of course, always an issue you budget and what do you
actually spend; do you spend more than you budget; do you spend less than you
budget; and how accurate are these figures that you budget or are they just
factious numbers.
The
report gives a historical examination of the percent of announced spending
change and actual spending change. The result calculates percent changes in
revenue and in spending from two key documents; one from the headline figures
presented in budgets and the other from the figures in Public Accounts.
Now,
they didn't have a lot of figures in Public Accounts, because they did none. At
least now Public Accounts is something that we're doing consistently. The
figures present annual budget target misses. For this measure, a smaller number
is better the smaller the number, the better it is, and reflects more accurate
financial forecasts.
The
difference in expenditures for Newfoundland and Labrador is documented for the
last one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight years. It goes back to for
instance, in 2010-2011 there was a 10.9 per cent difference. In 2011-2012, 8.6
per cent difference; 3.8 in 2012-2013; and up to 2016, it was 0.9 per cent. So,
Mr. Speaker, we're actually making budgets that we stand by, they're realistic,
and they represent the economy of the day.
In this
time period, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador again consistently ranked
among the least accurate provinces in Canada. Again, we wonder why we're left
with such a mess that we were left with. Mr. Speaker, it's also not surprising
that provinces who are more dependent on natural resource revenue, thanks to
buoyant prices over the oil and whatnot, would have more changes.
Mr.
Speaker, we go back to 2011-2012 again with the grades, and I don't want to
stand up here like a school teacher or a professor or anything like that. These
letters because it's not numbers; it's graded in letters are indicative of
what the past administration, the lack of accountability, the lack of fiscal
responsibility that the previous administration exemplified over the past number
of years. I gave a brief outline of the factors that are being considered for
these grades.
In
2011-2012, the administration that was in place at that time was given a grade
of F. Now, when I was going to school F did not mean fantastic. It did not mean
fantastic, it meant fail. If you got an F, boy, I tell you, you were in trouble.
You failed. So, Mr. Speaker, in 2011-2012, the PC administration failed in their
accountability and the responsibility regarding their fiscal responsibilities.
In
2012-2013 they got up, they made drastic improvements. They got up to a D, a D+
to be exact. It was that bad in 2013-2014 that we have an n/a which is not
applicable. So I guess they didn't grade at all.
In
2014-2015, which was not so very long ago, when they had it and these were the
times, by the way, when they had the $25 billion, they had all the money to
spend. They brought it home from Ottawa b'ys, we got it.
Well, we
got it all right. We know where we got it. We got it and they blew it because
AN HON. MEMBER:
Look at the roads.
MR. LETTO:
Yes, just look at the roads
is right.
In
2015-2016, as I mentioned earlier, they fell off the cliff again because that
was the year that they saw the last year of their mandate when they spent like
drunken sailors with no accountability and just trying to buy votes. That's all
they were doing. There was no accountability and they came up with a big, fat E.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What?
MR. LETTO:
E, which does not mean
enough.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Not exceptional.
MR. LETTO:
It's not exceptional.
In
2016-2017, Mr. Speaker, the year that we took government and the year we had to
make all the tough decisions and yes, they were tough decisions. They weren't
very popular decisions, they were tough ones but we had to do it.
This
report, the C. D. Howe report, proves how irresponsible and fiscally
irresponsible they were during their time in office, Mr. Speaker, a time when
they had $25 billion in oil revenue to put around this province and they
squandered it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. LETTO:
$25 billion, and here we are
trying to get by on the measly dollars we got left in our coffers and we get a
rating of B in the first year. In the first year we took office, when this
government, this Cabinet, this Premier, this Finance Minister had the tough
decisions to make to save our province from bankruptcy, we came up with a B.
Mr.
Speaker, the mantra from the other side is exactly what it is. It's rhetoric;
it's mantra. It's not indicative of what we're trying to do here as a
government. Yes, we had to make some tough decisions, and we'll discuss that
today in the PMR, I'm sure, with all the fees and everything.
There
were tough decisions, and people were hit hard. We did not feel good about doing
that. We took no joy in doing that, but when you see what happened over the past
number of years, Mr. Speaker, we had no choice. We had no choice.
When you
go back and talk about the Estimates, one of the things I attended the
Estimates last night for Municipal Affairs and Environment. If you remember back
to the debate on last year's budget and the $30 million contingency fund that we
put in that we were, I guess we were chastised for, and people decided to call
it a slush fund a slush fund. Remember the slush fund?
Well,
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi and Cape St. Francis asked questions
on that. They were asking questions around why there was such a difference in
emergency spending and funding, why we had to spend so much that wasn't budgeted
for. If you recall back in October, Thanksgiving weekend, we had quite the
storm. There was a lot of damage done around this province. Guess where the
money came from to accommodate municipalities, private individuals for loss of
property and damage. It came from that contingency fund, Mr. Speaker.
It shows
that we were prudent, that we were thinking ahead. These things, we don't know
when and if they're going to happen but they are happening more frequently and
it's something that we have to do. So the slush fund that the Third Party was
especially rampart about, and even the Opposition as well, that we could take
that out of the budget. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a good thing we left it in there
because many people are seeing the benefit from that today.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a lot of good things in the 2017-2018 budget, and we will be
true to the budget. We will do what we said we were going to do. We have a plan.
We hear that all the time, that we have no plan. The plan, Mr. Speaker, is
called The Way Forward, and
The Way Forward is a plan that shows
we are responsible and we are going to get this province back on track. We have
a Finance Minister, a Premier and a Cabinet that is working very, very hard to
make sure that we get there.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to get up here this morning and to put a new
light on this of where we are, and that people and organizations, like the C.D.
Howe Institute, recognize us for what we are doing, and that what we are doing
is right. We will see the benefits in years to come and we are on the right
track.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question on the sub-amendment?
All
those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
I declare the motion
defeated.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Call in
the Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
All
those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr. Paul Davis, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Petten, Ms.
Michael, Mr. Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr.
Byrne, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Trimper, Ms.
Dempster, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Letto, Ms. Haley, Mr. Holloway, Mr.
Warr, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dean, Mr. King.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes, 8, the nays, 19.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
declare the motion defeated.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we'll
continue speaking to the budget.
I
believe there's a non-confidence motion which I'm sure the Opposition would like
to speak to.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yeah,
we'd like to speak to that, of course. Any opportunity we can get to get up in
this House and speak about issues that are important to the people of the
province, and this budget obviously is a big issue that's of importance, no
doubt.
When I
spoke on the sub-amendment, Mr. Speaker, I made reference to and I just
listened to the Member for Labrador West speak about how great the budget is and
all that. That's fair game, and if he feels that way, that's his own
prerogative. I don't know if everyone on this side really agrees with what he
said, or the people in the province.
This
budget that was just brought down, it's a continuation of last year's budget.
There's been no change. We've had an adjustment, and like I said yesterday, the
gas tax was adjusted and a few small little tweaks, but we're still faced with
those taxes and fees. There are still 300 one was reduced, but we're
still faced with 300 taxes and fees that
were brought in last year. I think it's safe to say it's crippling the
economy. We see it every day. We see it, we talk to people in our communities,
we talk to people we know. Our economy is struggling.
You can
look at certain economic indicators and whatnot and they're all pointing in the
wrong direction. The budget documents themselves actually stated that. We're not
in a great place in our economy where we stand today. A lot of that is a direct
result of this budget.
Another
interesting point, as the Member opposite was saying just now, speaking the
virtues of the budget and all the good things. I was at a loss to where he's
been living for the last 12 months, the last 18 months because two weeks after
the swearing-in ceremony or less than two weeks after, the Premier and Minister
of Finance sat in the media centre and they threw a black cloud over the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that's never been thrown over it before.
There
was a lot of hope and optimism and the people had a bounce in their step. That
day when they got up and they told us everything, they did actually tell us the
sky was falling. Contrary to what the Member for Lab West is getting up and
saying now that we're the ones, we're not the ones. We're trying to tell them
that the sky wasn't falling. We've never believed the sky was falling.
This is
a rough patch in the road. Everyone knew that. We knew that. The former
administration told everyone we were heading for a few rough years with oil
production and oil prices. We knew it, they just dipped lower than anyone, any
of the experts around had figured, but everyone knew this was coming. This was
not a surprise. I've talked to a lot of people and they say the same thing. It
was that one given day that was a black cloud and it's not been lifted.
To say
anyone else is responsible for bringing gloom and doom to the province, that's
not accurate, Mr. Speaker. This government opposite are the ones to put the
gloom and doom over the province, and right now today, 18 months later, it's
still there and it's on them. It's totally on them. They're responsible.
To be
pointing fingers this way to be the cause of that, if anything, we tried to be
the voice of those people that have concerns. We experienced that last year in
the filibuster. We read emails. We were criticized somewhat but a lot of people
were very thankful because their voices were finally heard. Their voices finally
got to the floor of this House of Assembly. Their views, their thoughts, their
concerns, we brought them to the floor of the House of Assembly like never
before. We read their personal messages.
Unless
Members opposite had the volume turned off or earplugs in
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
they would have heard it loud and clear what the people of this province
thought of that budget and their views have not changed.
Mr.
Speaker, it's become pretty evident to me that you're getting less uprisings now
because a lot of people on the street now, they throw their hands up. What's
new? What's new? Here we are again. There's nothing that surprises me with this
government. The same show, it's a different day, it's a different date on the
calendar, a different time on the clock, but the same issues happening.
I spoke
to people and someone the other day said to me
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They say
the amount of issues, the amount of material that's being generated, the
mistakes, and the missed steps being generated by this government is too hard to
keep up with. It's a very accurate statement because I say that every day. It's
unbelievable. We have 25 minutes in Question Period; we could be going for days
on the issues. You don't seem to pay justice to the proper issues because there
are just so many of them. There are so many missed steps. There are so many
mistakes. There are so many questions that no one can put an answer to. The
government opposite, when they come back and give us their responses, you're
left shaking your head.
Mr.
Speaker, there's one issue there are a few, of course I'd like to just
revisit. It was a decision that was made a few weeks back. All the while adult
dental care is cut, funding to youth organizations is cut the Girl Guides
groups, the Boy Scout groups, the Boys and Girls clubs, their funding is cut
because we're in a tough, fiscal financial situation. We have to make drastic
measures, we don't have the money, and we're counting every penny. Okay, that's
fair.
We cut
snow clearing last year. That was a public uproar that we all witnessed last
winter. That was a savings of $1.9 million we know it's a lot less than that,
but that's what they articulated. Plus, we still have 300 new fees and taxes.
Nothing has changed, it's still there, just year two of them.
So you
get the picture and the gloom and doom is painted over the province and everyone
is saying when are we ever going to get out of this. Everyone looking at the
price of oil wondering when is the light at the end of the tunnel. Then, all of
a sudden, the MHA for Corner Brook, the Minister of AES gets up at the Corner
Brook Broad of Trade and announces free skiing in Corner Brook; Marble Mountain
free-for-all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
I do hope that the lady who
protested in front of this building for dental care I don't know if she is but
I'd like her to be watching this now and listening to that, Mr. Speaker. She
doesn't feel too good. She's home eating pureed food because she can't afford to
get her dental work done, and the Minister of AES is over here patting his chest
and beating his chest when he went and made an announcement in Corner Brook that
none of the rest of his government knew. They had to pick up the pieces.
The
minister went and announced free skiing. Now, all of a sudden but I'll back up
a second on that, Mr. Speaker, because that's one Question Period can't give me
an opportunity to
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Question Period doesn't give me the opportunity to really articulate what I
thought of that.
I did
spend years in tourism with the former minister. I know the department. I knew
the way Marble Mountain worked. I know the struggles, the challenges Marble
Mountain faced.
The
Minister of Tourism, the current minister today responsible for Marble Mountain,
when they shut down the mountain, he supported the board. I support the board,
their decisions. No problem, I'm with you; I agree. We're losing money. It's
doesn't make sense to keep it open. I support you.
Days
later when the minister goes, the MHA for Corner Brook, the Minister of AES, and
gets on his high horse and looking after the champion for Corner Brook,
announces the free-for-all, then the minister responsible for the department is
scrambling. All of a sudden, he fires the board fires them. They're gone. No,
their decision was horrendous. We need new people there. Totally against their
decision, no, no we're going to give free skiing to Corner Brook.
Nobody
knew it was happening only the Minister of AES on his high horse out there, and
then everyone is left to pick up the pieces. That happens when you have people
who do reckless things.
So to
get back to it; $11,000 a day, that was articulated by the MHA for Terra Nova
when he got up and answered questions because the minister was unavailable. He
answers and he tells us: No, it's not $5,000 a day; it's $11,000 new
revelation, so now we have an $11,000 loss a day.
Then all
the while, guess what ski resort is in his own district? What ski resort is in
that Member's district? White Hills. White Hills is actually out in his own
district. No free-for-all out at White Hills; you pay for your ski rentals and
you pay for your passes, but the Member for Terra Nova is out beating oh, no
he supports this decision of Marble Mountain. No, forget my own district, White
Hills.
I'll
guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, if I had a ski resort in my own district and one of
the my colleagues was given a free-for-all for the ski resort in his district,
do you think I would stand in this House and speak the virtues of that decision?
No way, never, ever, but he did that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
He got to go back, Mr.
Speaker, there such thing as elections, when people go and actually mark their
X. So he has to go back and face his own people, the same people that use White
Hills. The same people who saw that their own ski resort was snubbed because the
powerful ministers on the West Coast wanted to open it up for the Easter
weekend.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
I do hope that those people
actually, I hope a few Girl Guide leaders and children are watching this today
and seeing their funding cut; I hope they're seeing the mockery that's happening
across the way today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
I'm
having a job hearing the hon. Member who's been recognized to speak. I'd ask for
co-operation from all Members in the House.
Thank
you.
I
recognize the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
the truth does hurt, and I understand that. I would not want to be sitting over
there listening to me giving them say what I'm saying about them because it
does hurt. A bit of an ego goes on, I understand that. That's fine.
I'll
just refresh, and I'm not going back there. I will not go back there but I have
to say, I don't know if the Member was there in last year's sitting when I said
he was auditioning for the Trinity Pageant. He's still the top candidate but I'm
not sure if they're ready for him yet or not, but he don't have to he can rest
assured, he's by a mile top of the heap over there. I'm not going back there but
I just wanted to remind him, he's the guy. He's next in line if any openings
come up. He's doing a great job of that every day, Mr. Speaker. You just got to
sit there. Just listen to it; it's theatrics at its best. As long as there are
theatrics in here, he wrote the book on it.
I want
to go back and finish off on the Marble Mountain point; $33,000 for a three-day
ski weekend. They're all out there. Now, I've been around the workings of
government, I'm not so sure even the minister can get into the cashbox of any
Crown corporation, but the Member for Corner Brook was out there telling us the
amount of money they made and how much it cost. They had a very successful
weekend. He was actually like, I thought I was talking to you wouldn't know
but you were talking to the banker.
I'm
listening to it and thinking, does he have any what's he out on the cash? He's
out giving out ski passes to people. Is that what he's doing? He must be out
working in the kitchen too. I don't know what he was at. The Premier apparently
was out shaking hands on the hill too. See, where I come from, Mr. Speaker, I
call that a bit of damage control because it was a terrible decision. It was one
that they had to wear, and it's one it is what it is.
Speaking
of Corner Brook and I'm not picking on Corner Brook but it might seem that
way. Corner Brook decisions and I've been to Corner Brook many times. The
Member for Terra Nova needs to start going to White Hills more often, Mr.
Speaker.
Crown
Lands moved to Corner Brook. No one is opposed to having a government office in
Corner Brook or anywhere else in this province, Mr. Speaker, but
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. PETTEN:
See, Mr. Speaker, they sit
down, they listen to us and they catcall. A scattered one of them might get up
when they're told to get up, other than that they just sit there and listen
because they just don't want to a scattered one will get up and spread the
virtues of this wonderful budget.
There
are 500,000 of us living here and I think outside the 30 across the way, I don't
really know there are a few others I suppose, give them probably a couple
thousand would you say, that might probably agree with this but I haven't found
them. I live in a community of 26,000 people, I didn't find anybody that's over
praising up any decisions they make and I'm totally sincere when I say that. If
I did, I'd tell you I found a scattered one. I didn't find anybody. Now there
still may be supporters of them, but they're not too proud of the decisions. I
don't know, they can go out and beat their chest.
One
final point, you hear the cheers and the heckling and the laughing. They take
great humour in it, but that $33,000 that was so freely given for Marble
Mountain, that's a pittance to an $8 billion budget. It is not pittance to the
groups that had their funding cut. That's the point that's being made here. That
lady who's looking for that dental work, those Girl Guide groups, those people
are looking at that and they're saying, what? Do you mean to say we're a
province that's faced with a fiscal crisis and that's what we're doing with
extra money? I know it's a small amount but it's the principle of the matter,
Mr. Speaker, and it's not defendable.
On the
Crown Lands moving to Corner Brook, so we're in May now, we found out that the
move is happening July 1 but we don't know the workers still do not know who
is moving. The move is happening July 1 was all they're told. We don't even know
if the move is going to happen July 1. I don't know if they can do it that
quick.
Again,
I'll go back, those people have families, they have homes. Their husband or wife
is working in St. John's. They have to uproot everything and move to Corner
Brook, if they have to move. There's not enough compassion or sincerity shown by
the government opposite to give those people a heads up, you will be moving.
It's
going to take time to clue up if they have to move, to sell their home, to
relocate their children, get them in schools, their wife or their husband to get
another job or take leave. It's a family situation. You're not moving from St.
John's to CBS or Torbay, you're moving to Corner Brook. It's like moving to
another province when you look at this, it's a seven-hour drive. That's the
reality.
It comes
back a lot of times when I say this, Mr. Speaker, I say this honestly and in
all sincerity. We get in this House and we debate back and forth and we have our
banter and whatnot, but I'm a believer in people, issues that affect people. We
can talk high-level stuff all day, and a lot of people don't understand some of
the things we talk about. I like to keep it to people, things that affect
people.
I'm
talking of snow clearing, I'm talking about the dental care, I'm talking about
Girl Guides. I believe in that. That's not words out of my mouth, that's right
from here. I do believe that's who I am, and I'm not changing who I am. That's
why when I go up to my district I can talk all level stuff if people want to
talk that, no problem, but I do like talking to the average person on the street
and what really affects them. It's the people issues, and that's where this
government has lost their way.
When you
get the heckling and laughing, when I say about a move or the cost, or people's
lives being moved from the Crown Lands office, it's insulting to people. I find
it insulting that they'd find it humorous, but how do the people feel? What's
the humour? What game is being played here?
Forty of
us are brought in this House of Assembly to represent the people of this
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Every district in this province is
covered. We're here to represent the people, but somewhere along the way, Mr.
Speaker, that's the biggest point that's lost in all of this, the people.
People
do matter. We were told that. That sounds familiar to me. People matter. You
can't lead if you can't listen. A stronger tomorrow, we heard all of that. A lot
of people believed it. Based on the results of 2015, a lot of people believed
it. I don't think they believe it today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
I really don't think they
believe it today, because a lot of people are lost to what happened. What about
the stronger tomorrow? What about people matter? People make plays, makes pun on
those words because it's insulting. They are insulted by those words now.
As a
member running for the PCs back in 2015, I saw the slogans. I knew people were
buying the message. I didn't know if they were going to deliver or not. I worked
like a dog to get elected in my own individual riding. I'm not saying I believed
what they were saying or not, but coming back to the people issue, Mr. Speaker,
I'm one of those people who live in this province. We all knew there was a very
good chance the Liberals were going to form government. A part of me was hopeful
that those words were going to mean something.
I have
two daughters, 21 and 17, that I'm hoping are going to create a life and stay
here. Me and my wife, the four of us live here. I have a family. I'm a person in
this province, and to be totally sincere with Members opposite, we can do all
the mocking we want, I was hopeful they would do a better job. Forget about your
stripe, as a person who lives in this province, we all should feel that way
regardless who is in government, regardless.
We have
a government in Ottawa, Justin Trudeau, a Liberal government. I wish them well,
because if they do well, we do well. It's just the nature of the beast. We can
have our political differences. We have different ideologies. We do things
differently than the government opposite. That's what politics is about, but at
the end of the day, all the decisions you make, every decision this government
opposite makes affects me and it affects everyone in this House, all our
families, everyone in this province. That's the moral of this debate and this
back and forth we get into all the time. That's where it comes down to.
So when
they're making these decisions of the Marble Mountain and the Corner Brook moves
and then on top of it, I won't go down, because I talked at length about it
yesterday, but the Bernard Coffey issue. There are a lot of smart people in this
province, a lot smarter people probably than sitting in this House of Assembly,
and even people that don't really understand the fiasco. They're saying what in
the name of God, what's happened, what's gone wrong here.
Again,
it comes back to the point of do you think people don't see through this? Again,
it's back to the people. It's almost insulting their own intelligence to be
doing stuff like that and then defending it to the province and everyone are
left scratching their heads. It seems like every decision that's made; the
outcome is left as everyone is in just total confusion.
I thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, it never ceases
to amaze me the foolishness you got to listen to on a Wednesday morning. He
talked about the lead role in the Trinity Pageant. Well, I think he's got the
lead role in the Trinity Pageant, Come
From Away and Maudie with that
performance over there just then.
He
talked about the poor old woman in his district that's got to eat her meals
through a straw. Now that says more about his ability as an MHA than anything
else to have our government do it. I challenge him, if he can't get the job done
in getting that woman some dentures pass her name along to myself and my CA,
Wanda Tremblett. We've had pretty good success in getting people their dentures.
He
talked about us laughing and finding it funny. Well, on this side we certainly
don't see anything funny about facing a $2.7 billion deficit last year. We got
that down to approximately $1 billion last year. We don't find it funny that we
had $25 billion wasted over a 10-year period.
Do you
find that funny, Mr. Speaker? Because I certainly don't; I don't find it funny
when we've got 118 political patronage appointments put forward by the PC
government in the fall of 2015 prior when they knew they were going to lose
the election, 118 political appointments. You had 13 in Labour Relations; six in
Municipal Affairs; 40 in Health and Community Services in one day, one day. That
was on October 29, 2015.
What
else do we have? We have Advanced Education and Skills, we had another 19; BTCRD
was 4; Environment and Conservation, 8. Fisheries and Aquaculture, we had
another 14 there.
So when
they talk about political appointments and patronage, they loved it. They
couldn't get enough of it. They couldn't wait to get their buddies a position on
a board or some paid position. That's not funny, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if
you find it funny because I certainly don't, and I'm sure our colleagues on this
side don't find it funny either.
This is
my first opportunity to speak on the 2017 budget, which I think is a great
document, a lot of good things for the District of Bonavista. I was taking some
notes while the Minister of Finance was reading the speech and six things jumped
out to me, but I'm just going to talk a little bit first about the multi-year
infrastructure plan that was announced back on March 17, which was applauded by
the construction association of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's $3 billion over
five years, which is going to be the equivalent of 4,900 jobs each year. Mr.
Speaker, do you think that's good for the province, 4,900 jobs based on our
infrastructure plan every year? I think that's great. The District of Bonavista
is going to see some of those jobs as well, Mr. Speaker.
What we
also have in that infrastructure plan is our five-year roads plan. Now, these
guys never had a plan for anything, a lot of pork-barrel pavement. We saw it
rolled out in the fall of 2015, but we they couldn't get it done because they
rolled it out in October and we had to come back and say it's not fair to not
honour their promises.
So we
actually honoured their promises. We didn't have to but we did, because it
wasn't fair for them to make a promise and not have it delivered to the people.
We honoured that last year, Mr. Speaker, and we saw some good work in the
District of Bonavista; however, some of the worse roads in my district for
example, Trinity Bight and Smith Sound going up to Harcourt-Monroe-Waterville,
up to Burgoyne's Cove.
They had
a senior Cabinet minister for 15 years, Mr. Speaker, and the way they were
throwing around pavement when they were in power, it was all pork-barrel
pavement. That senior Cabinet minister, the former Minister of Finance, couldn't
scrounge up a bit of pavement for Trinity Bight or Smith Sound. I can't believe
it.
Down in
Ferryland they put new pavement over good pavement, but that former minister of
Trinity North couldn't look after the good people in the Trinity Bight or the
good people of Smith Sound. Now, we have a tourism industry, especially in the
Trinity Bight, where you have tour bus operators threatening to pull out of the
area. We have 14 fishing enterprises in Bonaventure where trucks are hesitant to
go up over the roads. That is neglect.
I'm
thankful that the Minister of Transportation and Works took a meeting with me to
discuss those concerns because it's important to me, it's important to him.
That's the type of communication that we have. We have to work through those
issues.
This
year alone, we have $77.2 million allocated for road infrastructure. So what
you're going to see in the District of Bonavista now it is carry-over work
from last year is Route 230A which stretches from George's Brook to the
Bonavista highway.
Before,
you had the former Member, a senior minister in their Cabinet, fight with the
former Member for Bonavista South about who owned the road. Me, and the current
Member for Terra Nova sat down and I said: MHA, do you agree that this road
should be paved? He said yes because it benefits his district. They couldn't get
that done, Mr. Speaker. That shows co-operation between myself and the Member
for Terra Nova.
Another
thing that couldn't get done over the years, you couldn't get a bit of brush cut
up in the Bunyan's Cove to Port Blandford area. That was another senior Cabinet
minister; the former Member for Terra Nova couldn't get that done. He was too
busy taking the fire truck from the good people of Bunyan's Cove and moving it
to Eastport to try to save his skin in the 2015 election.
That
didn't work out too well because we got the current Member for Terra Nova, and
I'm glad we got him couldn't get a bit of brush cut. Last year, we got the
brush cut going from Musgravetown to Port Blandford.
AN HON. MEMBER:
We did a good job, didn't we?
MR. KING:
That was us.
The road
between Musgravetown and Bunyan's Cove is in terrible shape. What's going to be
done next year? We're going to resurface that road so that the people in that
area have a decent road to drive on. That's a high-traffic road that goes to
Port Blandford which people in that area take to get to Clarenville.
What is
also neglected is Point Road in Canning's Cove. This Member was in for how many
years? Six years? And four of those in a Cabinet post I believe. The way their
Cabinet ministers were throwing around pavement, he couldn't get those roads
done. He couldn't get the road in Canning's Cove. So another conversation I'm
going to have with the minister is to see can we get a bit of slippage to try to
get that Canning's Cove road done next year, and hopefully we can we'll see.
We do have the 25 per cent availability, the 50 per cent the 75-75 I believe,
that's the way that works with the amounts that are able to because it's a
living document.
Now, I
also talk about the good work that myself and the Member for Terra Nova have
been able to do because of the co-operation we have. When the Member for Terra
Nova said to me: Do you support getting work done on the Port Blandford bridge?
I said: Yes, I do, because it helps my district and it helps the people in my
district. Because we were able to work together, we're able to get things done.
Instead
of a lot of self-interest like you had on that side of the House, we've got
people working together for the betterment of not just my district but for the
District of Terra Nova as well, because what's good for Terra Nova District is
good for the District of Bonavista and vice-versa.
I have
about 11 minutes left, so I'm going to get to some other things I liked about
the budget. I'm going to get one, maybe two more opportunities to speak.
I
brought up a number of different things when I spoke to the Chamber of Commerce
for Bonavista-Trinity Regional Chamber of Commerce the week before last. A lot
of the comments that I got from that group was that it was a good budget, a good
step forward. The fear mongering that was put forward by that side of the House
didn't come to fruition, they said, actually. It was a tough budget, but it was
a budget that was needed.
For the
first time I'd say in about five years there were absolutely no complaints about
the delivery of health care at the Bonavista Peninsula hospital in Bonavista.
One and two, every year, was always the Bonavista hospital and the College of
the North Atlantic. Now, there's a bit of work to do at the College of the North
Atlantic because that crowd had no focus whatsoever on the College of the North
Atlantic, but our current Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour has
put a focus on the College of the North Atlantic. I'm proud to say I'm going to
be keynote speaker at the college tomorrow night for their open house, to talk
about the good programs that we have there, the commitment that we're making to
the communities.
When you
get the fear mongering by the Third Party and their buddies about colleges
closing down, that's absolutely not true if you look at the announcement that
was made last week, they're going to reinvest in the college. They're not like
MUN. They're not afraid to look at their own books. They're not going on $700
dinners. They're not insulting students by saying go eat a peanut butter
sandwich.
The
College of the North Atlantic is actually standing up and saying we can do
better. They're looking at within. They don't want to close campuses. They want
to provide regional hubs such as the campus in Bonavista. We've got some great
programs there, a number of them being close to filled. We have some work to do
on our plumbing and cooking courses but the other ones are full, and we can
utilize our campus as a regional hub. It is the heart of the talk of the
Bonavista Peninsula. So I'm proud to go there tomorrow night and speak and talk
about the good things, the investments that we're making the College of the
North Atlantic.
When I
talked to the Chamber, I spoke about a number of different things and we
recognize it was a tough budget last year. No one on this side liked it. No one
liked it because we faced a $2.7 billion deficit. If we borrow like the NDP
would have us borrow, we'd be bankrupt right now. They like to compare oh well,
the NDP government in Alberta is borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. Well, they had
savings in the bank and they're just on their line of credit right now while we
blew through $25 billion, we blew through our credit cards, the low-interest
ones, and then we blew through the high-interest Canadian Tire card, and now we
had to borrow where our position was next to junk.
We got
ourselves in a position where we don't have to borrow every two or three months.
When we borrow now, we are borrowing for the year and next year, Mr. Speaker. We
don't have to borrow to pay our bills. Just imagine, the first time in the
history of this province that we never had to borrow to pay our bills, not pay
our employees, and not keep the lights on. That's a huge step forward.
This
year, we got our deficit down from $2.7 billion which we faced going into
Budget 2016 down to $778 million.
That's not much to brag about but given the reality that we faced, that's a
significant step forward, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure you would agree, and the
good people of Baie Verte Green Bay would agree as well.
One
thing that I have to let people know, we made a promise. We didn't like to have
to put this in place, but we had to put it in place to get our fiscal footing
back on track. Now that we have our fiscal footing back on track, we're able to
reverse some of the things that we had to put in place, such as the gas tax.
On June
1, you're going to see a reduction in the gas tax by 8.5 cents a litre. That is
significant. On December 1, you're going to see that further reduced by another
four cents. Then the other four cents is going to be reviewed with the fall
fiscal update. We made a promise that this would be a temporary measure and
we're keeping our promise.
We have
to thank the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I thank the good
people in the District of Bonavista, for bearing the brunt of the poor
management that the PC government put us through for 12 years. Twelve years, Mr.
Speaker, where they had $25 billion to work with in oil revenues. It's unheard
of.
They
were planning their luxurious lifestyle based on $112 barrel oil, Mr. Speaker.
That was going to go on for years. What happened last year? We saw it drop down
as low as $26. So when you put all your eggs in the one basket, that's what
happens.
They
always get up to pontificate and say, well, you have no plan you have no plan.
A bit of a diversification plan that we actually have and I talked about one
thing is our infrastructure plan which gives the equivalent of 4,900 jobs a year
over the next five years. That's not minimum-wage jobs, Mr. Speaker. That is
good-paying construction jobs.
If you
look at the focus on the fishery which there's been some controversy surrounding
the fishery, we are sending a clear message to Ottawa that we want better
control over our fishery. We want better management; we want better science. We
can't go out and fish everything until it's gone; we need to have proper
management. One of the key economic drivers, as stated in our Throne Speech, is
the fact that groundfish is going to be one of the key components of our economy
coming forward.
We have
a shrimp fishery and a crab fishery that is in decline but we see the cod
fishery coming back. So we want to work with the federal government to grow and
support the groundfish industry. That $100 million, the Fisheries Innovation
Fund that we have, that's going to go a long way in helping us.
They'll
talk about the $280 million phantom fisheries fund that they had. They'll write
letters to the editor about it; they'll brag about it. Not one person from the
federal government showed up. When they threw the big party down at The Rooms,
no one showed up. They never did get the $280 million first or last. They never
delivered a cent of the $120 million that they promised from the provincial
government. So we're going to use that money to invest directly into our
fishery. We want to grow this industry.
Now,
another big thing, talk about diversification. One of the most important
industries we have in the District of Bonavista is the tourism industry. I know
the great District of Baie Verte Green Bay has a great tourism industry as
well; you've got some great things going there. I'd say the District of
Bonavista is second to none when it comes to tourism. The hospitality you get
there, the sense of welcome that you have, the amount of things you can do
there, the amenities we are focused on growing that industry in the District
of Bonavista.
We are
one of the few growth centres in the province, Mr. Speaker. We are growing, and
we see new businesses come in. We see record numbers of tourists come into the
District of Bonavista. They enjoy the experience.
Now, if
they had a decent road to drive over in the Trinity Bight area, that would be
all right, but because the former Finance Minister didn't care about that part
of the district, we've got roads that we've got to try to get some good
maintenance on.
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
Pardon?
MR. JOYCE:
That where Trinity Pageant
is?
MR. KING:
That's where the Trinity
Pageant is, and I think the Member for CBS is going to be the star there all
summer.
But
getting back to what I was saying about the tourism industry, we're focusing on
doubling the amount of tourism dollars that we have coming into this province to
$1.6 billion, and the District of Bonavista, Mr. Speaker, is going to be front
and centre for that.
If you
look at the agriculture and I've only got a minute left, and I'm going to have
a couple of other opportunities to stand up and speak, and I love standing up
and speaking in the House and talking about the beautiful and historic
District of Bonavista, but our agriculture industry is booming. The provincial
government held a livestock production seminar at the College of the North
Atlantic the week before last.
It was well turned out. There were about 20 interested
people there, learning about all aspects of livestock production. It's not very
prevalent in the district right now, but there's enough interest that we had the
seminar there and we've got enough interested people who want to see this and
make a go of it. So that's one thing I look forward to, plus we have Growing
Forward 2 and PAAP adding additional funds to the agriculture industry, and the
number of young farmers that we have, I'm excited about that industry. The next
time I get up to speak I'm
going to speak a great deal about that.
Thank
you for your time.
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
indeed an honour to get up and speak again to the budget and to address the
people of this great province of ours in the House. It's only 18 hours ago that
I got a chance to get up and spend 20 minutes outlining my view on the budget,
particularly my concerns about where it's not meeting the needs of the citizens
of this province and acknowledging some of the things that are positive there.
I have
no problem acknowledging that, but also acknowledging the fact that the whole
concept here was about having a plan and a way forward. I still see no vision of
that. I see no version of how that can work. I see no way of implicating how
people can find a positive process out of this budget line. I'm going to get a
chance to talk to that and a few things from yesterday.
I'll
revisit last year's budget because you can't, in isolation, talk about 2017-2018
budget without referring to 2016-2017 because there has to be a transition. When
you cut the bottom out of something, somewhere along the way you have to start
to fill it in again if you want water to stay in that, and you haven't done
that. So now not only are we having spillage where you got so much to come, what
you're doing, there's full leakage. You're still hurting people. People are
still worse off than they were before.
I want
to correct I very diligently listened to my hon. colleague for Bonavista. He
got up and he is very diligently fighting for his district and outlining the
issues. There's no doubt, I agree, there are a number of roads up there in
horrendous condition. I know, I spent three days travelling all over that part
of the area as Minister of Transportation, and knew with the minimal amount of
money for infrastructure, and my colleague, the present Minister of
Transportation and Works, will outline we'd need billions more to do it, but you
tried to pick what you thought was, at the time, the most necessary because of
traffic flows or for safety reasons to address those needs. No doubt, we could
continue to do it.
The hon.
Member for Exploits is right. It's not only in that area. It's all over
Newfoundland and Labrador. It's in parts of my community. If it's Portugal
Cove-St. Philip's, Paradise or if it's on Bell Island, we've had those
challenges. But we did, over the years, try to outline how we could invest in
particular areas. We had regional staff who would come in and tell you things
that needed to be done. No doubt, it always didn't get done in that fashion and
you'd have to go back and say: Well, what you're proposing is $15 million. We
have $1.5 million for that area. What can we do? What are the immediate things?
So you made choices.
It
wasn't always popular with citizens. It wasn't even popular with staff. It
wasn't popular with the politicians of the day, but you try to do what had to be
done. So I think the onus here, and the acknowledgement by all of us, is that we
do have some big challenges here nobody disputes that in every sector, in our
infrastructure particularly, in our roads, in our water and sewer, in our
wastewater and all the things that are pertinent and important to people in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We all try to do our part. There's no doubt, the
ministers there will try to do that. But to make sure and to ensure that these
communities also survive, you have to instill in people the faith that things
can move forward.
I have
to correct the Member for Bonavista on a couple of other things too. He had
talked about next year will be the first time in our province's history that we
had a balanced budget; that's not true. We had four or five balanced budgets and
surplus budgets, which were used to go back in towards the deficit or invest
back into infrastructure to ensure that we had equity across this province,
ensure that we had stability, but also ensure that people felt there was a
reason to stay in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and in urban Newfoundland and
Labrador and in any other areas that there would be business investments so they
could be productive and they themselves could grow what they felt was their
commitment and their contribution to their respective communities. So I have to
clarify that.
The
Member is also right. We did have, in a 10-year period, during the tenure of the
previous PC administration, $28 billion in oil revenues; it was a great time.
The money came in; oil prices were up more than people thought. Great deals were
negotiated around royalties, so we were getting more we thought. Productivity
was up because we had managed to develop new platforms. Exploration had
identified new areas.
So all
the partnerships nationally and internationally had been developed; we'd had
come a long way. Part of that $28 billion went back in to support and service
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was their money. They deserved it.
They had worked for it, but particularly they had sacrificed over years and
years of having to rely on Ottawa to give us a few pittance every now and then
when we were desperate for something, they had to rely on not being able to
sustain certain industries, not having enough money to put into the fishing
industry, as the Member had talked about, a very valued industry in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
So we
were fortunate, but we were fortunate because of design, because of what went on
in the '70s and the '80s and the negotiations and the contracts that were put in
play around the oil industry and the royalty regimes that said we weren't giving
away things anymore; those days are gone. These are going to be ours. The people
of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to benefit from them.
How do
we do that? We ensure that we're open for business and we're open for
partnerships, but partnerships that benefit everybody involved, not just the big
oil industries or not just the Ottawa tax receivers but the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. That's what we ended up doing here and that's why $28
billion it came in, no doubt we'll never argue that; we'll never dispute
exactly the amount of money that came in here.
I have
to note, too, that all the money that came in went out, and where did it go?
Back in to improve the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in different
forms. Some of it was direct, some of it was indirect. Some they're now starting
to see the benefits. Some of it was to be proactive in certain areas. Some of it
was by being proactive you were looking for the future gains and the future
benefits of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I just
want to note some of the monies that were put back into an investment for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador over the years. Let's talk about some of the
things; $6.28 billion has been spent on provincial infrastructure. That was to
catch up on bridges, health care infrastructure, transportation infrastructure,
municipal infrastructure, roads and buildings, education infrastructure.
There's
not a person in this province who would argue, particularly educators and when
we talk about the challenges and I know we also have challenges in education and
we probably will forever and a day until we get enough money and enough
resources to be able to do exactly everything that's perfect, but we'll always
have challenges.
None
will tell you now the issues around mould and health issues within the school
system. In particular, heavy safety things have been improved dramatically. Do
we still have a ways to go? Of course we do. We still have six or eight schools
that are in the queue now that are being built. So they'll improve the quality
of education. That's one small example of the investments in infrastructure.
We're
still looking for one up in the Southern Shore area because there's a big
demand. When you have it in growth areas you need to be able to build what's
conducive to the needs of the people, and have some vision that the future will
obviously be attractive enough so you don't rebuild after and rebuild after,
that you have an attraction that people will come for. We need to get to that
point again.
We've
got other ones that are still on the delay queue that need to be done, but I'll
discuss that that's another day for another discussion. What we're talking
about here now is responding to where the money went. I want to outline, the
money went back for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians where it always should.
That was one of the other things we did.
Another
$3.7 billion went into gross domestic products. We invested back into what we
were doing in Newfoundland and Labrador. We went back in to ensure that our
products and that here were competitive and that we were doing things in the
right vein.
Mr.
Speaker, $2.7 billion in labour compensation. Don't forget, for a number of
years Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the civil servants and the people that
work, the teachers, the nurses, the doctors, the professionals, the civil
servants, the plow drivers, the inspectors on the wharves, all the people who
are part and parcel of keeping the services and ensuring that our province could
move forward, were underpaid. They were the lowest paid in the country in most
cases. They weren't given an opportunity to be engaged in other types of
training, to be able to ensure that they were the best at what they did.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Lose their specialists, let
them go.
MR. BRAZIL:
That's right, exactly. That
was the problem.
Our
people, the people who work for the citizens of this province were noted
internationally as being the greatest workers around, but it was hard to keep
them because people have to survive themselves. They want to have a better
quality of life for themselves and their children. To do that, you have to have
a sustainable income. It's got to be something that's of value, and you have to
be seen that you're valued within your workforce. It wasn't valued with the
value of the amount of money we were paying people.
No
doubt, people respected what they were doing, their bosses, the civil servants
and the politicians of the day, but to really reflect that you had to give them
a proper wage that was competitive. It didn't have to be the highest. They
weren't looking for that. So it was competitive so that they couldn't be drawn
away from Newfoundland and Labrador, the place where they had honed their
skills, the place they loved, the place where they had developed partnerships
and had taken a leadership role in communities.
The
administration of the day felt, you know what; we need to do that, because
investing money there saves us money in the long run. It keeps our qualified,
trained people here. It gives them a reason to be more engaged in their
communities. It keeps our own skill set here and it develops the industries
we're doing. That was a great investment there and it made sense.
We also
invested billions into other infrastructure. We invested into additional health
care, forest access roads. Let's talk about forest access roads and things like
this; foreign animal disease laboratories, things that might seem small. Four
million dollars out of $28 billion might seem small but you add up 20 or 30 or
those, not only do you have services that uniquely meet all the needs of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but you also have industries that can grow.
Everything is not about big oil industries, fishing industries, forest
industries and the mineral industries. We understand that.
That's
why I liked last year, when I heard what was coming from the Liberal
administration, like diversification. I've said it 100 times, I was bought in. I
was in on it. I was sold. I was just waiting for the detail. The old clichι, the
devil is in the details. I was waiting for it, because I thought there was a
master plan. I thought it was going to be wonderful. I said, I'm in. Let's take
it. Let's go for the next you'll deserve the government for the next 10, 12,
15 years if you have that plan in place. Unfortunately, the plan never
materialized. It was never there. What continued to happen was about the $28
billion that we had.
I'm
going to explain again where some of that $28 billion went; education and
infrastructure, for example, arts and sciences; Grenfell, $27 million one
institution, $27 million, and rightfully so. It's a great area of Newfoundland
and Labrador, a good investment, needed. No doubt, the Members out there saw it.
I know the citizens thought it was a proper engagement; core science facilities,
$9 million; again, another investment there, something that was stuff that
would also generate other particular industries and give other people a sense of
pride of investing in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
College of the North Atlantic, $21.7 million; that's Labrador West, one
community, Labrador West and those two communities up there, very necessary
because an industrial area that should be serviced, very necessary. A great
investment and I think it's going to pay off dividends tenfold tenfold. Again,
that's not wasted.
New
residence at Memorial University; as things were booming here we knew the cost
of students coming here and housing. Newfoundland and Labrador had a boom on the
Northeast Avalon, particularly around housing and the cost. It wasn't fair for
our young students from Baie Verte or Twillingate to have to come in here and
spend all their savings or not have enough in student loans because everything
was going solely to housing. What did we build? Beautiful housing; $65 million
in housing, residences for university students.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Who were they for, students?
MR. BRAZIL:
Students from all over
Newfoundland and Labrador, international students, all over Canada to sell the
wares of a great institution, Memorial University, and we did that.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
That wasn't wasted, though.
MR. BRAZIL:
Apparently, some people
believe it was on that side. I don't think the people who live in it. I know the
university don't, and I guarantee you the parents who felt that their kids were
safe and were cared for in a great environment right next to the university,
what a great ideal process to have $65 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Let's throw out a few other
schools that were replacing old dilapidated, outdated schools. Laval High
School, Placentia, another great area in Newfoundland and Labrador, $13.5
million; French Shore Academy, Port Saunders, $13.2 million. Another great
investment for the people.
You're
seeing a trend here, you're seeing a trend. It's not political. It's all over
Newfoundland and Labrador. Investments are everywhere. It was never about the
political part of it. It was never a stamp of what party was doing it. It was
about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Everybody had to earn that $28
billion. They were going to get their part back. Rightfully so, and that's what
we did.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Labrador Straits Academy,
L'Anse au Loup, another great part of this great province, $15.6 million.
Another great investment, it's well deserved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Lobbied for by their MHAs and
delivered by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador from the PC administration
because it was the $28 billion that was owned by Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians and they got their monies back for it.
Riverside Elementary extension and site improvements, Shoal Harbour, $7.4
million only part, we're missing something there but I won't get into that.
That will be for a debate again; $7.4 million there. We're still waiting on the
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
The hon.
Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
There are a few other schools I'll get to another time about ones that we had in
play. A number of schools we had in play but got cancelled.
There
may be a few Members over there who know about the schools that are cancelled
right now, but we'll go back to it.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I know.
MR. BRAZIL:
You know about it. There may
be a few other Members there who may know about that, but we'll talk about that
another time.
Let's
talk about transportation infrastructure examples. Placentia Lift Bridge,
another great part of our province that, as you know in that whole area, what's
going to be developed down there, what impact that's going to have on the
fishing industry, on the oil industry, on the tourism industry what a great
opportunity; a fair, substantial investment, $51.9 million, but the right
investment for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to replace a 50-year-old
bridge and do it in such a way that it's professional and it draws business
investments.
The Team
Gushue Highway, $61 million, to be able to make sure that the largest municipal
infrastructure area has the proper transportation infrastructure that we draw
the Outer Ring Road was a great idea. A former Liberal administration started
it, finished off by a PC administration, then another connecting road all made
sense; the people's money. It didn't make any difference what party was in power
or who were the Members for it. It was all about giving to the people. It was
their money. So everybody gets to earn from that. Anyone who comes into the
Northeast Avalon for health services or education services or employment
services have an opportunity to access those infrastructure facilities.
Bonavista community care residence: $2.6 million, again another investment to
take care of the needs up there.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Good investment.
MR. BRAZIL:
Without a doubt. Called for
the by the municipal leaders up there who worked with the MHAs of the area. Do
you know what? We even had partnerships with federal MPs. It didn't make any
difference what party they were because and they bought into it this was
about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It was about giving them back their
money and making sure that everybody got their fair share. Their fair share was
based on what their priorities were, and their priorities were done. All their
priorities were done. Money was spent all over Newfoundland and Labrador.
Money
was spent on all parts of Newfoundland, including the North Shore of the Bay of
Islands, all kinds. Everybody approved for it. Everybody could address and
access services that were done.
Let's
talk about health care infrastructure. Boat Harbour community clinic: $2.5
million, small rural communities but still deserving of the services, in need of
services and delivered on the services.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. BRAZIL:
Labrador West I'm glad the
Member for Labrador West noted that because it falls right in line. Labrador
West Health Centre, great facility.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. BRAZIL:
$90 million, what a great
investment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Well deserved; $90 million
gone, great, well spent. No doubt, well deserved and well used up there as
(inaudible).
Let's
talk about some of the other equipment because we've talked about
infrastructure and building facilities, but if you build facilities, you have to
make sure the box is not just the thing, it's about making sure that the quality
of the people are in there. So we've taken care of that because we've made sure
we give proper salaries to attract the best, to keep the best Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians here, the best trained, to give them ways to be retrained,
upgraded, fit into a system of better qualifications. We've done all that, so
we've gone through that. This is where our $28 billion has gone now.
Then we
get into health care equipment. We've got to have stuff properly. People have to
have it. It's no good being good at what you do if the equipment is not
conducive to you being able to do your job properly.
Mr.
Speaker, dialysis equipment: $8.2 million for dialysis patients, and we all know
the challenges around that an investment to ensure people's quality of life.
The challenges that they go through on a daily basis, we want to
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Around the province.
MR. BRAZIL:
And around. You're right,
around the province.
It's
unfortunate that the one in Harbour Breton no longer exists because we wanted to
make sure everybody in rural areas had that. But this was about providing
services to people, particularly those who may have some challenges around
health care.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Where would they have gone
to?
MR. BRAZIL:
Oh, they would have just to
give you a couple of examples where they may have gone: Labrador, double
dialysis investment up there, Gander, Burin, Carbonear, Happy Valley-Goose Bay,
Harbour Breton unfortunately, the Harbour Breton one no longer exists
Bonavista, St. Anthony, Labrador City, Port aux Basques and Fogo Island. Great
investments all about proper health care, quality of life for people.
MRI
equipment: $10.5 million, a necessary piece of equipment for proper health care;
X-ray machines, $10.5 million; monographic equipment, $13.9 million; ultrasound
equipment, $14.7 million. These are all investments in health care.
Linear
equipment, $15.9 million; CT scanners, $20.8 million we're up to $125 million
just in side equipment for an institute. That's side equipment. That's just
diagnostic stuff. Additional treatment centres that we've done over the year:
Tuckamore Centre.
We're
talking about challenges we have in this province and we're seeing it now as it
materialized even more and more. Imagine what state we'd be in if we didn't have
these and we weren't proactive to put these in place. Tuckamore; Happy Valley
centre; Grand Falls-Windsor; Humberwood addictions treatment, $3.6 million in
Corner Brook; adult addictions treatment centre in Harbour Grace, $6.9 million.
Hundreds
of millions of dollars will all add up. I'll finish off the $28 billion when I
get a chance again, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you very much.
MADAM SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. Member his
time for speaking has expired.
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
It was
indeed an absolute pleasure to stand here again today and represent the
beautiful District of Cape St. Francis for the beautiful people of Cape St.
Francis.
Madam
Speaker, just listening to my colleague speak I was writing down a few notes and
stuff like that and trying to think about the different things because we all
get an opportunity to speak on the budget. The other day, I had 20 minutes and I
spoke about different things. It was very positive about things that are
happening in my district and the great things that were announced last week. I
spoke about volunteers.
It's
interesting to listen to the debate when we hear on the other side of the floor
the wastage of money, the wastage of the $25 billion and stuff like that. Then
my colleague gets up here and he done a great list. The thing about it is, Madam
Speaker, over the last 12 years, and I've been only here for eight-and-a-half
years, I saw large investments in our province. I saw great investments in our
province and I saw a province with people with an attitude that we were the
best. We are a great province; we're great people and everything else. I always
go back to my days of working with a company that I worked with and I used to go
do all these training courses on the Mainland. You'd always go in and there will
always be one person in that class that wanted to tell a Newfie joke. He thought
it was always funny; it was a Newfie joke.
I can
remember in 2005, probably 2006, that the Newfie joke was changing because we
were termed as a proud people. We were a very, very proud people. When they did
the Newfie joke, I used to put the joke back on them but we're the ones that our
economy was booming. We're a province that is contributing to Canada and
everywhere else in Canada and we're a very proud people. Back then, their
attitude changed.
Not only
did our attitude change about who we were as people, the rest of the people in
Canada were looking at Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and saying, b'y, that's
a great province. That's a great place to live and they're great people there.
Over a period of time and I understand, for years, there was the doom and
gloom and we take the pittance from Ottawa to keep everything going because we
were lucky to get it. We were lucky to get our transfer payments and we were
lucky to get this good thing Canada is taking care of them down there or
they'd never (inaudible).
But the
whole attitude changed. Was it related to our money coming in from oil and stuff
like that? Yes, it was. Yes, it was. Was it the revenue coming in from I'm not
going to go back to the days when it was a Liberal government or it was a PC
government or whatever it was, but we never had the revenue in this province to
do the things that we needed to do.
When you
look around this province today, I look at a province that has a great future.
Our education level in this province is second to none. We have smart,
intelligent young people that want to live here.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Are you talking about me?
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm talking about everyone.
I'm talking about our whole attitude. The Minister of Education wants to know if
I'm talking about him. I hope you want to live here, just like everybody else
does.
I really
believe that we needed to make these investments. I don't care if they were in
Cape St. Francis or they were in Bonavista, there were investments that needed
to be done.
I'm
going to just give an example. I know the Member just got up and he spoke about
province wide and stuff like that, and I'd just like to speak of my district. I
look at things that were wrong in my district and again, not blaming anybody;
I'm not blaming anybody for mould in schools; I'm not blaming anybody for the
schools being old; I'm not blaming anybody for infrastructure being down. But we
had a deficit and the deficit back then was our infrastructure. We just never
had it and that's not to fault in order to be able to do anything, it's like
your home. It's like what's happening in our economy today.
You
cannot do anything with your home to improve home improvements unless you got
the money to do it. Unless you got money to be able to put the new windows in,
or you have to put that roof on you don't have the money, then that's it, you
have to live with it. You patch things up. Rather than get your shingles
replaced, you go up and put a bit of tar and fix a few shingles and stuff like
that. That's what happened in this province in the '70s, '80s and '90s, really.
It
wasn't until 2000 and fortunate enough, we were the government to be in power
at the time, because the revenue changed. The revenue in this province changed,
and there's no doubt in my mind mining played a major role. We're very fortunate
with the mining and everything else. And our natural resources, for years that
we had all these natural resources, really came through for us, and they came
through in a big way because there was money generated from these resources.
So it's
important to remember where we were to in Newfoundland and Labrador, where our
attitude was to in Newfoundland and Labrador, and where people's attitude about
us was to in Newfoundland and Labrador and we changed it. We did a great job
of changing and I'm not saying government changed it. I think the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador changed it, because the Newfie joke wasn't there
anymore. People were looking at Newfoundland and Labrador in a different
attitude, with a different attitude about our people.
Listen,
b'y, they're doing something right down there. They're doing good things. Here's
a province everyone will look at equalization, and today equalization didn't
pay off very well for us, because we look at other provinces around Canada
Quebec, $10 billion; Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, $1.7 billion, $1.8 billion.
If we had those revenues today, we wouldn't have the fiscal problems that we
have.
But do
you know what? Newfoundlanders and Labradorians took great pride in being taken
off equalization. Here we are, we're the smallest, youngest province in Canada
and we got taken off equalization because we did so well, because our leaders,
our people, are hard workers, because we work hard, because we have an industry
and our resources came to show that, listen, that's a great province to live
in.
We saw
people move. We saw everything come up from our population to back in the
'70s, '80s and '90s, if you looked at a nurse, for just an example, that came
out of Memorial University or came out of St. Clare's back then it was St.
Clare's nursing and then she or he had a decision to make: Will I stay in
Newfoundland for X number of dollars, or will I go somewhere in the rest of
Canada and make probably twice as much money?
It's a
huge decision for a person coming out with some debt and everything else and
willing to start off their life. I can move to Alberta and I'll just give an
example. I can make $40,000 in Newfoundland but I can move to Alberta and make
$80,000. I can move to Ontario and make so much more money. You wonder where our
money has gone.
Guess
what the nurse who comes out of these institutions today, where she wants to
stay? Right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The same thing as the doctors;
they want to stay right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you know why?
Because we're on par with the rest of Canada now and people will look at our
engineers and look at our professional people and realize that, listen, back in
the '70s and back in the '80s, I understand they couldn't be paid, but do you
know what? Today, we have more doctors. We have more nurses than ever before.
The
reason being because they're treated equal, just like they are in Nova Scotia,
as they are in Saskatchewan, as they are BC because it's just as good to work
here as it is anywhere in the country because we increased their wages. They
have the same opportunity to work as they did anywhere else, but now
Newfoundland is the attitude one time was: Listen b'y, if you chose to stay
home, that's the way it is. You're going to get less wages. But we don't have to
put up with that anymore, and we don't put up with it anymore. That's a great
thing.
Our
teachers, like I say, our professional people are getting paid similar to what
they are all across Canada. Our RNC, our young police officers that I look at
here every day I'm very, very proud of them are here because this is a great
place to live. It's a great place to work. But do you know what? That all came
at a cost and if you go back and that cost to me, I'd spend it again tomorrow,
because I think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we're as good as any people in
this country and we should be treated the same way. Our professional people
deserve the same wages that they're given in any other place in the world
because this is a great place to live.
I tell
you, there's no other better place, as far as I'm concerned and again this is
my personal opinion. I can't see a better place in this world to raise a family
than here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
And I think everyone here
will agree with that. There's no doubt about it.
So there
are things we need to do to make sure our families want to stay here, we want to
stay here and it's important. Again, I go back to our pride in our people, our
pride in our province, so we have to make sure that we do these things.
The
Member again I want to get off to where I wanted to go to in the first place
but I'm after getting into it a little bit more. I really want to talk about my
district. I going to explain a few things that happened with investments that we
made. I tell you right now I don't know how much of the $28 billion it is, but
it was great investments.
The Holy
Trinity School in Torbay not the new one that was built last week that I'm
talking about, this one that opened in 2008 and I really want to thank the late
Jack Byrne; he did all the work on it. I was fortunate enough to be the MHA at
the time when it opened but I'll tell you one thing, Jack Byrne did all the work
on it. He was a great Member and a great man.
That
school then went back that was 60 years old; it had mould in it. You walk down
the corridors and you could hear people walking. The people underneath could
hear people going up and down the corridors in that school. It was a hard
school. There were pieces built on, it was fixed, there was a roof that was
leaking and stuff like that. Now they have a beautiful, new school down there.
The high school is a new school. We have an elementary school. These are
investments that we did in my district that I'm very proud of, what we did in
education.
At St.
Francis of Assisi over in Outer Cove, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, they had
an extension done to their school. It was $1 million worth of renovations. They
had an extension of four classrooms and it's a beautiful school, absolutely
beautiful top technology. I talked to one of the teachers there and she said;
Kevin, I'm teaching for 28 years, we're very fortunate here in Newfoundland and
Labrador to have the technology. She said she could remember back when I was
speaking about earlier, I guess the '80s and '90s, when there was only so much
resources.
They
don't use chalk today, Madam Speaker, but they use their whiteboards and SMART
Boards, whatever they're called, but you had to watch that chalk. You used every
bit of it until it got right down to the bitter end because there was no money
to buy more chalk. Our technologies today and everything else that we have, our
schools are better, our people are doing better.
I look
at recreation, and I'll give you a great example again. I'm going to thank the
former Member for Cape St. Francis. Again, I was the one who did the opening
ceremonies and I wish he could have done it himself because it's called the Jack
Byrne Arena now.
Just to
give you an example, back when the Jack Byrne Arena first opened, minor hockey
in the whole area had 167 children in it. That's 167 children that are playing
minor hockey. They used to go to St. John's every Saturday morning for their
practices. Their practices were from 6 o'clock in the morning to 9 o'clock.
They'd get a half hour each, and that's all they'd do, get their half hour in
each and they'd reverse around. So sometimes parents had to get up at 5 o'clock
in the morning to get their children out there, but that was what they had to
do; 167 children were involved in minor hockey.
I was
always involved in minor hockey. I always played hockey, coached it and
everything else. Today, the Jack Byrne Arena last year had over 800 minor hockey
players over 800 minor hockey players. Now somebody may say that was a waste
of money, the investment we made in the Jack Byrne Arena. I don't think it's a
waste of money. I think that those 600 or 700 children now have the opportunity
to play minor hockey.
We look
at the effects of sports and recreation that has on the health of people. Just
look at what it has on our children; we get them out playing hockey. Right now,
actually I met with the president of the Minor Hockey Association. They said we
have so many children next year, they don't even know how big it's going to get
because it's growing and growing and growing. We're all excited about it, and we
don't even have enough ice time at the Jack Byrne Arena. We still have to go to
St. John's, I think for 40 hours a week now just to cover it, but what a great
investment.
Any time
we can take our children from the couch to the hockey arena, to the soccer
field, to the ball field, whatever it is, not only is it an investment in our
children, it's an investment in our lifestyle and it's an investment in the
health of the children. We do have a big issue in this province. We do have
problems when it comes to the health of all of us really.
I try to
exercise as much as I can. I play a little bit of hockey. I'm not very good at
it anymore, but I do try to exercise. We all should be exercising. We all should
be trying to live healthier lives or whatever. You know, just think about the
investments in recreation.
I'll
just mention my district. I am sure I could look over across the way and say
that every district in this province over those 12 years that we were in power
saw investments in recreation in their districts. Are those bad investments?
When they get up and say, oh, they squandered $25 million. They threw it out the
door. You wouldn't know if we just took it and threw it out through the window
and said there it is, gone.
Listen
there were investments that needed to be made. Again, I'm not saying it was the
PC government, the Liberal government, I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just saying
the timing was right for us. The timing was right. If you got money and you get
some extra money and your house has a leaky roof, it's time to fix the roof. You
got to fix the roof. Use that money to fix the roof. There is no doubt about it.
When you got some money and you need some work done on your yard or something
like that, that's the time to do it. You've got to do that stuff.
That's
what happened over these years. The Member just got up and listed off all these
huge investments, $50 million here and $50 million here. I'm sure if you go
through the whole list, there's nobody who would disagree with those
investments, and especially if they're in your own district. You're not going to
disagree with the investments in your own district.
You know
what, Madam Speaker, we still have a little ways to go. We still have a little
ways to go, but the problem I have and I'll get back to my budget thing here
now. The problem I have is, as I spoke, how proud our people are. How proud it
is to live here, and what a great feeling it is to be a Newfoundlander and
Labradorian. I really believe that because I feel it and I know the people in
this province feel it.
What
happened in this budget and what happened with this government across the way,
they said they had a plan. The plan, everybody's going to like it, but they
didn't have a plan. What happened in last year's budget is the same thing that's
happening in this year's budget; like I mentioned the other day, even in the
Budget Speech, reaching into people's pockets. I think we reached in too deep
into the people's pockets.
There
are some things sure, that we can look at and say, okay, maybe we can cut back
on this or maybe we can cut back on that, but the effects of the budget taking
$6,000 out of people's pockets has a huge effect. It has an effect again, the
other day, I said it's like a snowball effect that it has on what people can
actually spend.
I know
the Minister of Justice, I can remember everyday getting up in this House of
Assembly and I heard about dentures. Because what the plan was first, you give
the top or the bottom. You only could take one at a time, and he talked about
the dignity of people. That's the one thing that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians have, we have dignity. None of us want to go on bended knee or
anything at all, but we do have dignity.
The
denture program, I know first when it started, it was either your top set of
dentures or your bottom set of dentures. We realized it, and everybody in this
House realized it, look, we want to be able to give that person who needs
dentures dignity dignity to smile. That's all. That's all it was about, but to
cut the whole program altogether, seriously.
Like I
said, there are some options we could have done, some different things we could
have done. I don't say that everything you cut was but there are some things
you just can't cut. When it comes to a senior, and I have seniors in my district
that tell me, Kevin, I got to go up the over-the-counter drugs that they used
to get. These items, Madam Speaker, are $4, $12. They're not high-end items.
It's not like something they're going in to get that's going to cost $150, but
to a senior and to senior citizens who are trying to stay in their own homes,
that we really want to stay in their own homes, $20 a month or maybe $30 a month
when you're on a fixed income and you know where every single penny is going,
that's a lot of money.
Those
are the things that, you know, we talk about pride in our people and pride of
who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we should be proud as
legislators in here that we don't let that happen. We shouldn't let it happen
because there are some things listen, there is nobody I'd love to see us
have a billion dollars in the bank, but there are some costs that you should
just say, b'y, we got to take that. We can't do that to certain people.
That's
what's happening today in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are a lot of people
in this province that are really, really hurting. They are really, really
hurting and they find it difficult to live. Like I said earlier, we're very
proud people and I want to see all our young people stay here. I want to treat
our seniors with the dignity that they deserve. I think, right now, this budget
is no different than what the budget was last year. The problem is I don't think
the people on the other side see it.
We just
have to look at how we treat our people. How we treat our families. That will
tell you who we are as individuals.
Thank
you very much, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Madam
Speaker.
Given
the hour of the day, with the consent of my colleagues, I would suggest that we
recess until 2 p.m.
MADAM SPEAKER:
This House now stands in
recess until 2 p.m.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I wish
to address the matter of caution which I had extended to Members yesterday with
respect to references by a Member of this House to a member of the public who
was formerly a Member of this Legislature. I urged Members at the time to be
cautious in debate with respect to referring to former Members of this House by
name as they are no longer in a position to defend themselves in this Assembly.
The
O'Brien and Bosc reference used to support this caution is to Speaker Milliken's
decision in the House of Commons in 2005 and found in the House of Commons
Debates on page 5933. At issue were Member comments critical of two former
Members.
There
had been an earlier decision of Speaker Fraser where the same caution that I had
given yesterday had been issued.
Speaker
Milliken determined that the Speaker Fraser ruling on comments made about a
former Member were comments initiated by the Members themselves. The allegations
made by the Member arose in the House and the former Member was not able to
challenge any possible unfair criticism.
In the
matter before him in 2005, Speaker Milliken distinguished the issues before him
from the Fraser ruling. He stated that the references to a former Member were to
public testimony and had already been reported in the public domain. Therefore
less reliance could be placed on the earlier Speaker Fraser decision prohibiting
the naming of an individual. The comment made before Speaker Milliken was
therefore allowed.
I will
refer to the comments made in the House of Commons at the time. The remarks that
offended the parliamentary secretary make reference to testimony given in a
public forum before an inquiry and widely recorded in various media.
I have
carefully reviewed the situation to ensure the references made here in the House
are already in the public domain and I am satisfied that that is indeed the
case. If the disputed statements were thus not linked to reports in the public
domain I might have been inclined to view the matter quite differently; however,
under the circumstances I fail to see how I, as your Speaker, can enjoin Members
from referring at all to the testimony or to those media reports that are
already made public. To do so would be to impose upon Members of the House
restrictions that go well beyond normal restrictions that apply outside the
House.
Consequently, and for clarity, I will proceed in this House on the assumption
that where facts and comments respecting a named individual who is a member of
the general public, whether or not a former Member of this Legislature, are
clearly already in the public domain, a Member may comment upon those issues in
this House.
However,
a Member will not be able to stand in this Chamber and make personal, defamatory
or derogatory comments about a member of the public, whether or not they are a
former Member, where those comments originate with that Member and not by a
member of the public, where the member of the general public have on context and
are not clearly substantiated in the public domain.
Members
in this House have the protection of parliamentary privilege and a freedom of
speech during debate. There can be no legal action for slander or defamatory
remarks arising from such debate. Individuals who are not Members of the
Legislature have no such protection and it is therefore unfair to make
unsubstantiated allegations or comments during debate under the protection of
the House when the person about whom those comments are made did not themselves
initiate the remarks and do not have the protection of the House or a defence
against the unfounded allegations.
I would
like to welcome to the public gallery two students: Joshua Smith Ford and
Kayleigh Richards from Virginia Park Elementary School who will be the subject
of a Member's statement today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also in the public gallery is
Ian Chaytor from Conception Bay South, who is the subject of a Member's
statement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we have the Members for the Districts of Conception Bay East Bell Island;
Placentia West Bellevue; Virginia Waters Pleasantville; Topsail Paradise;
Exploits, and Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this past week I had the privilege of attending the best of Portugal
Cove-St. Philip's business, sports and volunteer awards. Portugal Cove-St.
Philip's resident Fred Hutton served as master of ceremony which saw 12 awards
given in three categories.
The most
moving moment came when the guest speaker, last year's youth of the year
Portugal Cove-St. Philip's resident, Nathan Chaulk, who is this year's
provincial Easter Seals youth ambassador, brought the message that every citizen
has the ability and responsibility to serve as a volunteer no matter the
challenges they face, and that the rewards for volunteering are immeasurable.
I would
like to congratulate the following award recipients: Youth of the Year, Grace
Codner; Senior of the Year, Ruth Bugden; Service Group of the Year, Portugal
Cove-St. Philip's Lions Club; Volunteer of the Year, Bradley Moss; Male Athlete
of the Year, Kyle Spurrell; Female Athlete of the Year, Kaitlyn Hall; Coach of
the Year, Jonathan Lee; Team of the Year, Grade five Boys PUMA Basketball;
Employee of the Year, Shannon Barbour; New Business of the Year, Brewkies K9
Bakery & Spaw; Developer of the Year, B&L General Contracting Limited; and
Business of the Year, Sharpe's Store.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating all award recipients.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to pay tribute to an outstanding volunteer, the late Gordon Lomond of
Marystown. Gordon joined the Lions Club 59 years ago in Port aux Basques and
over his lifetime he served with Lions Clubs in Stephenville and Marystown. He
held most positions on the executive, including treasurer and president. He also
served a term as Deputy District Governor for his Lions district.
Mr.
Lomond was also a committed member of the Heart and Stroke Foundation, founding
the Marystown Burin Chapter and serving on the executive for over 15 years,
and was still a member at the time of his passing.
He was
instrumental in the towing of a church from St. Joseph's to Marystown, and
continued his staunch support of his church for life. As a Eucharistic minister,
he would go on to become a licensed lay reader at the ripe age of 78 years old.
Gordon
Lomond loved to be of service to community, family and faith. He leaves behind a
beautiful wife, Sadie, children Geoff, Jackie and Scott, and a community for
which he has been a pillar for many, many years and who now say a profound thank
you, Gordon, for all you have done, leaving this world a far, far better place.
Thank
you, Gordon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to celebrate an incredible opportunity that two
students in my district received.
On April
25, 2017, two students from Virginia Park Elementary, named Joshua Smith Ford
and Kayleigh Richards embarked on a journey of a lifetime. The two students were
chosen to accompany six others from the province as part of the Dreams Take
Flight program on a one-day trip to Disney World. This program, offered by Air
Canada, works with community organizations and schools to provide this
opportunity to deserving children.
Josh and
Kayleigh joined the Atlantic Canadian cohorts in Halifax and woke up at 5 in the
morning to fly to Orlando for an all-expenses paid adventure to Disney's Magic
Kingdom. They were given the red carpet treatment in Disney World and didn't
have to wait in any lineups. They even got to eat as much candy as they wanted,
all thanks to the generous contributions from the partners of the Dreams Take
Flight program.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating these two students on their
wonderful experience, and thanking all those involved in the Dreams Take Flight
program for their hard work and dedication.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize a Conception Bay South resident, Mr. Ian Chaytor, who has
been involved in soccer as a player, a coach and administrator for 45 years.
Ian has
been part of the Conception Bay South Soccer Association for 15 years, both as a
coach and at the board level and is Provincial B Coaching Certified. On April 7
of this year, Ian was awarded Executive of the Year during the Newfoundland and
Labrador Soccer Association Hall of Fame induction ceremonies.
For the
past number of years, Ian has had a hand in many aspects of growing the game in
Conception Bay South. In addition to his role as president, Ian took on a lead
role in two major soccer events hosted by CBS and the Newfoundland and Labrador
Soccer Association.
In CBS,
Ian assumed the role as Soccer Convener for the Newfoundland and Labrador Summer
Games and also at the 2016 Senior Men's and Women's national Championships, Ian
was a member of the host committee with responsibilities for overseeing the CBS
soccer facility. In addition to his logistical duties, Ian also found time
during these events to serve as one of the games announcers for television
broadcast of the games.
I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you're ever looking for Ian, just go to the soccer
field, you'll find him.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating and thanking Ian Chaytor on his
accomplishments and his efforts in soccer.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Exploits.
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts, who recently won the 2017
Allan Cup, the biggest prize in Canadian national senior hockey. This
championship has been held since 1908, making it one of the oldest club-team
hockey competitions in North America.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Almost as old as you, Jerry.
MR. DEAN:
Yes.
This
tremendous achievement comes on the heels of the Cataracts having played in the
finals for the league championship of the Central West Senior Hockey League,
narrowly missing out on a victory in a seven-game series.
The
Cataracts were also the Herder Memorial Trophy winners in 2016, making them one
of the most decorated teams in Newfoundland and Labrador's history.
Mr.
Speaker, only two other teams have won the Allan Cub for Newfoundland and
Labrador in the long history of this tournament once in 1986, and again in
2011.
They
defeated the Lacombe Generals 7 to 4 at the championship in New Brunswick and
did our whole province proud. Mr. Speaker, we are one of Canada's smallest
provinces by populations, but we are still a force to be reckoned with on the
ice.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Cataracts on their outstanding
performance this season.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize the 30th anniversary of the Labrador Straits Historical
Development Corporation an organization that has shown tremendous leadership
in culture and heritage tourism in my district over the past three decades.
The
organization has been led by a number of dedicated community-minded individuals
since its incorporation in 1987. I'd like to acknowledge the contributions of
people like Cindy and Doug Robbins, who have been involved for more than 25
years; Margaret Buckle and Lawrence Normore, whose vision and leadership have
served the organization well since its inception, and hard-working and long-time
employee Bonnie Goudie.
Apart
from promoting community ties, the Development Corporation has done a marvellous
job in preserving built heritage in the area. The Gateway Complex serves as an
entry point into Labrador, and an introduction to all the culture and tourism
offerings in the region.
Sites
like the Point Amour Lighthouse offer visitors a glimpse into Labrador's rich
maritime heritage that stretches back for centuries.
It was a
privilege to join the Development Corporation's anniversary celebrations, and to
recognize how instrumental this organization has been these past 30 years.
I ask
all hon. Members to please join me in congratulating the Labrador Straits
Historical Development Corporation on reaching this wonderful milestone.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education and Skills.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
recently had the wonderful opportunity to attend a graduation ceremony for the
newly created Transitions to Work Pilot Program. That ceremony was in Corner
Brook, and it was truly inspiring to see the dedication and enthusiasm of the
graduates there.
Transitions to Work, Mr. Speaker, was implemented in January of 2017 through the
merger of the former Employment Transitions and Sector Skills programs. It now
provides Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the support they need to secure
entry-level employment and financial independence. Compared to the two previous
programs, Transitions to Work enhances pre-employment support and job search
assistance and introduces new approaches to job placement services as well.
To date
in 2017, Transitions to Work has been offered in five locations: Stephenville,
Corner Brook, Marystown, Carbonear and St. John's. A total of 58 participants
have completed the pilot program in 2017 thus far, including some of our most
vulnerable residents who truly need support and they're getting it through
Transitions to Work. Transitions to Work will be next offered in Grand
Falls-Windsor beginning this month.
With
funding through the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Job Fund Agreement, I am
very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we will continue to deliver and assess the
valuable Transitions to Work Pilot Program.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I would like to recognize
those individuals who have gone through the Transitions to Work program. I would
also like to recognize that all governments must play a vital role in assisting
the vulnerable members of our society to overcome employment barriers.
Overcoming such barriers provide individuals with financial independence,
stronger physical and mental health and a sense of purpose. There are a
multitude of reasons why an individual might find themselves in difficult
situations to overcome employment barriers. Quite often, those individuals would
be left without a means to live a quality of life. Transition programs and
supports are key to providing those people with the tools to create
opportunities for themselves.
This
side of the House recognizes the efforts put forward by these individuals and
wish them well in their future endeavours.
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, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It's good to see that
this pilot program is a success, and congratulations to everyone who has
participated to date. Getting a job is often a job in itself and it is good to
see people getting help finding employment and financial independence.
I hope
the minister will recognize the still existing need for many adults to get their
GED and take action to return ABE to the College of the North Atlantic.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we're committed to exploring new ways to manage road improvement
projects for the betterment of the travelling public.
In
recent years, there has been much public conversation related to nighttime
construction and the potential benefits to the province. It is viewed by many as
a way to help reduce slowdowns and interruptions during the day when there are
more people on our highways.
I am
pleased, Mr. Speaker, to inform my hon. colleagues that this summer, the
Department of Transportation and Works is moving forward with a pilot project
for nighttime construction.
A
contract has been awarded to Concord Paving Limited of Carbonear to complete a
paving project on the Trans-Canada Highway from Kenmount Road to the Salmonier
Line at night.
Testing
nighttime construction for road work is a commitment of
The Way Forward and part of our efforts to improve the way we do
business.
Mr.
Speaker, the safety of motorists and construction crews will be, certainly, a
priority of our government and will be a key consideration in this particular
project. The pilot will also test the effectiveness and the value of
construction at night. A report will be prepared at the end of the project which
will consider such factors as safety, productivity, cost and the impacts on
motorists and residents.
Mr.
Speaker, we look forward to conducting this pilot and to sharing the results
with residents early next fall.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, of
course we welcome any initiatives that make improvements for the travelling
public and we are supportive of testing nighttime construction for road work.
As we
all know, we have a short construction season in our province and nighttime
construction may help alleviate some of the issues associated with that. Of
course, as in all construction projects, every effort must be made to ensure the
safety of the workers, contractors and the travelling public.
I look
forward to seeing the results of the pilot and hope it will offer many insights
on the value of nighttime construction in our province.
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, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Road maintenance has
to be done and people also have to use the roads. Nighttime road work is an
obvious solution. It has been done in other jurisdictions for decades.
The
stretch to be done at night is very busy during the day. It is a good place to
start, and I thank the minister for that. I applaud this move, but stress, as
the minister has done, that the safety of the workers and the travelling public
is key.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in
this hon. House to acknowledge the seven Tony Award nominations for
Come From Away.
Shining
brightly on Broadway's Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre in New York City,
Come From Away has become a smash hit
in the New York theatre scene. Playing to sold out shows, fabulous reviews and
now, a nomination for the most prestigious honour in theatre, a Tony Award for
best musical.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
In addition, the
Come From Away writing team of Irene Sankoff and David Hein also
received nominations for best original score, best book for a musical and
musical score. In all, Come From Away
garnered seven Tony Award nominations in what I'm told was a very competitive
year on the Broadway scene.
Come From Away
is an excellent portrayal of our genuine kindness, generosity, understanding,
inclusion and acceptance during one of the darkest moments in recent history.
I
attended Come From Away in late March,
and was humbled by the amazing reception of our story of goodwill.
Mr.
Speaker, I felt immense pride when patrons rose to their feet with a standing
ovation, knowing that this was an honour to the fine people of Gander and
surrounding area. The simple focus of Come
From Away makes theatregoers feel good about themselves, and how we as a
community, when tested, can rise above any challenge.
I invite
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating
Come From Away, and its nomination for Broadway's biggest honour.
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 his statement. I, too, have seen the show
and it was indeed extraordinary.
We join
with government in congratulating Come
From Away on their seven Tony Award nominations; a massive accomplishment
that is certainly worthy of recognition.
It's
been amazing to see the incredible interest this show has garnered. Not only to
people in this province, but to folks around the world. It's become, as they
say, the talk of the town.
As a
citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador, I'm very proud of this success. This show
is a feel good, uplifting story that speaks to the very best that humanity has
to offer. We have long known of our people's kindness, generosity and caring
ways. Now the rest of the world can see this as well.
We wish
the cast, crew and writers all the best, hoping they can turn seven nominations
into seven awards, but no matter what the result, we're all very proud of their
accomplishments. They've represented us very, very well. Bravo!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The people of Gander and area
were astounding in their generosity on 9/11. Who would have imagined it would be
celebrated in such a fantastic way. They did what came naturally.
Come From Away is a testament to that
and a call forth to everyone to share, to live that generosity.
Congratulations to the storytellers, to our people who inspired this story, and
to our own Petrina Bromley and Romano Di Nillo for being part of performing this
wonderful story.
Seven
Tony nominations, Bravo!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I have
to admit, I was once guilty of scooping you on the bravo as well.
I'm
going to ask for leave of the House. It's now 2:30, it being Private Members'
Day we normally start Private Members' Day at 3 o'clock. I'll ask direction,
actually, from the House. Will we continue with Orders of the Day and go beyond
3 p.m., or will I cut it off at 3 p.m. and start Private Members' Day?
MR. A. PARSONS:
We'll go to Question Period
(inaudible) skip out of here.
MR. KENT:
Yeah, we don't have any
questions.
MR. SPEAKER:
So will I call Private
Members' Day immediately following Question Period?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm sure the people of the province are shaking their heads again today
upon learning of another political appointment. The former Liberal
vice-president and co-chair of the 2015 election campaign has been rewarded with
a senior position in the Department of Health. I'm told there was no competition
for this position.
I ask
the Premier, the Premier of the province, the head of the government I ask the
Premier to explain what merit-based process your Liberal friend Jamie O'Dea went
through before being awarded this position?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
individual concerned has a set of skills in relation to clinical trials,
oncology and management, and is currently seconded from Eastern Health to the
department to provide those skills at a time when the NLPDP in particular has an
acute and pressing need for them.
It is
not unusual, and indeed, it is encouraged as far as I'm concerned, that staff in
the departments and the regional health authorities, mingle in this way so that
we can benefit from skills and enlarge their experience. I see nothing
inappropriate in this at all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today
the minister says they intermingled, yesterday he said they're an autonomous
agency.
I ask
the Premier: Is it correct that you terminated the position of a director of
pharmaceutical services and then created a position of director of drug programs
so you could reward your 2015 campaign chair?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I will
not be speaking to individual HR issues out of respect for the individuals
involved. There was a vacant position within the Pharmaceutical Services
Division. We have a pressing need for people with experience in clinical trials.
As was
mentioned in Estimates the other day, the NLPDP is under significant cost
pressures. Generic drug purchases have yielded probably their maximum in terms
of cost-effectiveness, and we need now to start looking at clinical trials and
brand data. We also have pressing need on the federal scene for skills in
oncology drugs and these skill sets are ones that this individual brings from
Eastern Health.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister says he won't speak to individual HR matters then he goes ahead and
speaks to it.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: What officials in the Premier's Office had knowledge
of the former clerk's conflict of interest and your special arrangement with the
former clerk?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I've
mentioned so many times this week in this House of Assembly in response to this
particular issue, there was no special arrangement. What we had in place was a
contract with the former clerk. We've tabled that contract.
Mr.
Speaker, there were conflict walls that were established. There was a list that
was shared with the Department of Justice. That list was shared with Cabinet
Secretariat. We've been through this so many times this week. No special
arrangement. There was an amount of time to deal with the number of issues that
the former clerk wanted to deal with before transitioning, and, Mr. Speaker, we
just simply ran out of time and the clerk resigned.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the clerk himself has said there was an arrangement with the government.
Democracy Watch says that they've never heard of a transition period for
high-ranking public servants who are in a conflict of interest.
I ask
the Premier: Why did you allow for a transition period, or is this something you
just created or made up on your own?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I'm sure the former premier and now the Leader of the Opposition would know,
because we've seen a period of time, whether it was one day or six months or
seven months or whatever period of time I'm sure the Member opposite would
understand, because I'm guessing there would have been circumstances in his own
practice, in his own career that we would have ran into situations even within
government allowing individuals to transition into public life.
Mr.
Speaker, in this particular case, if you go back to last September, as an
example, we were dealing with some serious issues within government. There were
certainly skill sets that would have helped us and there was a lot of progress
that was made, I would say, Mr. Speaker, when you go back from September to
where we are today, how we reshaped and realigned the public service within the
province, and the former clerk was a big part of that work that was done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Government policy prohibits a former clerk from being engaged with any work
involving government or government entities for one year following their
departure from public service.
Will the
Premier give assurance to the people of the province that the former Liberal
clerk will follow this policy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For
those people that would know the integrity of Mr. Coffey, I am certain that
within the rules that apply to an individual like Mr. Coffey, that clearly he
would do that, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt in my mind, just like when we put in
section 11 in his employment contract and so on, when asked the questions about
that, he had the answers. His intention was to transition from private practice
into public life.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said so many times, we just ran out of time there. I'm confident,
knowing the integrity and what he's done already in our province affecting and
impacting many of the things, especially within our health care system. As I've
mentioned before, whatever rules apply, Mr. Coffey will be there to abide by
them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know
the Premier always likes to find someone else to blame or make someone else
responsible but he's the Premier and he has a responsibility as well.
I ask
the Premier: Have you informed Mr. Coffey that he's obligated to keep his hands
off government files and issues for a 12-month period following his employment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've
had a discussion with Mr. Coffey on his exit. I'm sure that in his resignation
he understands. Mr. Speaker, he understands the role and where he would have
been and where he is today.
Mr.
Coffey has resigned as a clerk and he's now whatever the next phase in his
life. I didn't have a discussion with him, if he's going to be a lawyer or
whatever he's going to do. It's up to him to determine whatever he's going to
be, but I will assure you this, Mr. Speaker. I'm confident that if Mr. Coffey is
ever in a conflict of interest he would be a gentleman, he would be the
professional, that he would declare that. He understands quite clearly what in
the legal round it is he's permitted to do, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier,
can you indicate if any out-of-court settlements or agreements occurred between
Mr. Coffey and any government entity during his time as clerk?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
there was an indication from the discussion that I had on the weekend that there
was a settlement that might have occurred within one of the health authorities
somewhere, but that's as much as I can speak to that. I know the list had been
shed. There was a fair amount of progress that had been made on the list that we
discussed in the beginning, as was discussed with the Justice Department, Mr.
Speaker. So he was winding his practice down, hoping to get into, obviously,
getting these clients or getting these files out of the way.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the transition period was taking much longer than we
anticipated and he made a decision to resign.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So, Mr. Speaker, this is new.
Only after asking questions several days do we learn there was a settlement
occur between Mr. Coffey and a health authority.
We just
heard the Minister of Health just a few moments ago speak about the relationship
and moving staff back and forth. That creates an even bigger issue about
conflict.
Premier,
can you tell us more about this conflict or this issue, this settlement? What
was the value of the settlement achieved by Mr. Coffey on behalf of his client
against the government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In this
particular case, I know the Member opposite has asked about Nalcor and ongoing
and conflict of interest, and I've explained the Nalcor situation many, many
times.
As I
said, Mr. Coffey's objectives were to shed these files and to get those
completed. So the details around what that settlement would have been, I would
imagine that would be between the client and whoever was opposite to that.
Mr.
Speaker, as I've mentioned so many times this week, the conversation occurred
between Mr. Coffey and with the deputy minister and Health and Community
Services to make them aware of where things were and as that progressed.
Mr.
Speaker, I have also said that when you look at the Cabinet table and so on,
these types of decisions would never happen there. I'm sure the Members opposite
would be aware of that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier is
speaking about a direct conflict of interest that occurred while the clerk was
in office here. This is new and very serious information and a very serious
circumstance.
I ask
the Attorney General: Were you aware of this settlement? Do you agree that this
was permissible, that this was proper and this was ethical for the clerk to have
a settlement with the department under the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador? As the Attorney General, do you believe this was correct and just?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At the
time that Mr. Coffey was hired, he did meet with a solicitor from Justice and
instructions would have been provided on how to avoid any perceived conflict of
interest. The same way that Mr. Coffey would have met with the Cabinet
Secretariat, the Premier's Office following the provisions of the
Conflict of Interest Act.
The
Attorney General would have no role in understanding whether there are
settlements or cases like that. In fact, the way the
Conflict of Interest Act is written, it is up to the individual to
disclose a conflict of interest to their deputy minister or to their minister.
So as the Attorney General, I would not be privy to that and I certainly think
the Member opposite would know that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier: Will you table the details of the settlement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
details of the settlement would be, I guess I don't have those. That would be
within the parties that the settlement was arranged. I couldn't tell you that
settlement, whatever the amount is, Mr. Speaker.
What I
know is that with a conflict of interest, as the minister just mentioned, the
onus and responsibility is on the individual or even the other party that would
be negotiating in the room at that particular time. If they consider or see that
there would be a conflict of interest, it's up to those parties to actually
either say that you feel this person is in a conflict of interest, or the
responsibility on the individual themselves to determine or to actually come
forward with a potential conflict of interest.
Mr.
Speaker, that's the way it works. The responsibility and the onus is on that
individual.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect, the responsibility and the onus rests with the Premier of the province
who knew about this in the first place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
The Premier knew about this
and allowed it to happen. He knew about it and allowed it to happen, Mr.
Speaker. Nothing could be a larger breach of judgment, of poor judgment and of
his own responsibilities as the Premier.
We have
a Finance Minister who stood and said that she heard about it through the media.
When settlements are reached it impacts the public purse.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: Do you believe it was appropriate for a settlement to
be achieved with the clerk, and did you know about it before that settlement was
reached?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, as the Member
opposite would be aware; any settlement inside the regional health authority
would be the purview of the management and the board as it relates to the
regional health authority. I would not have, as Minister of Finance, visibility
into that settlement. I have no information to add based on his question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I can't believe
what we're hearing today. After asking for questions and disclosure and openness
and transparency, finally the Premier divulges to the people of the province
that the clerk acted directly in a conflict of interest while he was in the role
of the clerk and the Premier allowed it to happen.
Premier,
a lapse in judgment, wrong for you, you never protected the government. You
never protected the people of the province.
Now will
you rise in your place and do the right thing and resign?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for the opportunity. No, I will not be resigning, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
We've been through the
rhetoric and the comments and we've listened to the Members opposite. When I
think of going back to Humber Valley Paving, Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
the Leader of the
Opposition was a minister in Cabinet. He was also a minister who actually worked
on the Humber Valley file. So we've seen examples of this from the Member
opposite as he stands here today and he uses his selective memory, I would say,
Mr. Speaker, selective memory. He wants to forget about his own actions, Mr.
Speaker.
The onus
and the responsibility is on the individual to declare that conflict. There were
mechanisms that were put in place. It was shared with the Department of Justice.
It was shared with the deputy minister, Mr. Speaker. The onus was on the
individual to declare that conflict.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in Estimates, the minister stated the government had not budgeted for
the relocation of Crown Lands to Corner Brook. This is a big move involving
potentially 30 employees.
I ask
the minister, your government made a decision to move Crown Lands to Corner
Brook, why didn't you budget for it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in our government's decision to move Crown Lands we looked at factors
that would help this new department realize savings, and not only realize
savings, but realize efficiencies.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the things we found when we looked at the realignment of this
new department is there were four mapping divisions. For example, one here in
St. John's and three in Corner Brook.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the things we have to look at when moving the positions to
Corner Brook is we're not quite sure yet how many people will accept those new
positions. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member opposite, we're going to work
with our employees, we're going to work with our union to accommodate their
needs to the best of our ability.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister said the money for relocation will be found in the existing structure
through his department.
I ask
the minister: Do you stand by your statement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, for a Member who actually was involved in a government department
previously, he would understand, or he should at least understand, that when you
look at budgets in a department there are no line items for such things as
severance or retirements. These monies, for any people who decide to take
positions in Corner Brook, will be found in those lines.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, Finance officials told us in a briefing last week that there are no
contingency funds in departments interesting.
I ask
the minister: Where is the funding coming from to support your move to Corner
Brook?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the Member
opposite may not understand, and I'll certainly take the opportunity to explain
it to him. As the minister has said, severance pay, the policy is that
departments would continue to look inside their own spending envelope to see if
they have the availability for that. If they don't, then the Finance Department,
as it has under this administration, as it had under that administration, has
available funds to be able to deal with those issues.
Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the Members opposite that we will do everything we can to
ensure a respectful transfer that takes into account the lives of our employees.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to remind the Minister of Finance, that my question was directed to the Minister
of Fisheries and Land Resources. Her officials told us in a briefing, told my
colleagues, you couldn't do it. So who is right, you or your officials?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, are you
expecting that Crown Lands employees won't move to Corner Brook? Is that the
real reason you didn't budget for this relocation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member is satisfied to stand up here and fear monger around
people's decisions and people's lives. We're not going to do that, Mr. Speaker.
We're going to work with the employees of Crown Lands. We're going to work with
their bargaining unit. We're going to work with their department to ensure that
we make this transition in the best possible way, and if there's a way we can
accommodate these employees in any way possible, we're certainly going to do it.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, fatal overdoses
related to fentanyl have risen exponentially in Canada in the last couple of
years and now there have been two recent deaths here in Newfoundland and
Labrador, that's two too many. There's more that can and should be done. While
government's opioid action plan was a start, there are major gaps.
For
instance, will the Minister of Health commit to making naloxone kits available
in our province's pharmacies, similar to what has been done in places like
Ontario?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question.
Mr.
Speaker, I agree, to an extent, with the Member opposite, that two fatalities
are two too many. What I would say is that the plans and preparation that were
put in place between the department and the regional health authorities have
actually saved 14 lives in two weeks. I don't think that is something that
should be forgotten in this.
In
regard to the specific question about naloxone, pharmacies in this province have
them currently. We have kits that are still available for individuals and
community groups; 811 can provide access to those kits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
And I agree with the minister
to an extent. The efforts of our first responders in recent weeks have been
absolutely heroic.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
But calling 811 is not
enough. We aren't reaching those who are at greatest risk. Naloxone kits are
dispensed free of charge at over 1,000 pharmacies in Ontario. Kits are only
available at our pharmacies if you can afford them. Today, pharmacies only have
access to the commercially available kit that cost $85. The free kits being
distributed by government cost about $14.
Why
won't the minister commit to immediately distributing kits province wide to our
50 addictions and pain clinics?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Our
naloxone kits, the ones to which the Member alluded that were distributed and
put together with the aid of SWAP and some community groups, are available in
addictions clinics. They are available for any group or any individual who feels
that they would benefit or have others with them who would benefit.
The
issue of availability is moot as there are still kits that have not been sought
or claimed. There's still capacity in the system, 811 is simply a contact point
whereby individuals who want those kits can find out how to get them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, in my own
community there's a clinic that has 100 patients coming every day, seven days a
week, and there is no naloxone kit provided. In the government's current opioid
action plan, there is no mention of any role or involvement for pharmacists.
They see people every day who are at risk. Pharmacists are trained to give
injections and they can also educate those that need instruction.
I ask
the minister: Will you follow Ontario's lead and engage our province's
pharmacists in tackling this crisis?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I've had
meetings with both PANL and the Pharmacy Board about drug issues and naloxone
kits. Once again, there are kits to be had. Any clinic that feels it needs them,
any individual that feels it needs them, has the opportunity to access them and
I would encourage them to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I had someone
call 811 yesterday. They took a message. They were called back and told, yeah,
go to Pleasantville and we'll train you how to use a kit. How is that a
province-wide solution for our pharmacies and for our 50 addictions clinics?
As of
today, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers still have not received training
on naloxone. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
Will the
Minister of Justice commit to immediately addressing this problem and provide
all first responders with appropriate tools and training?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
first thing I would say is that obviously as Minister of Justice and Public
Safety I'm actually not responsible for all first responders in the province.
That responsibility falls on a number of different departments.
It does
give me an opportunity to reference one of the incidents very recently which was
at Her Majesty's Penitentiary where we did have an overdose. This is an
opportunity publicly right now for me to thank the first responders there, the
guards who took the time and saved that person's life by administering NARCAN
and providing CPR. Thanks to the training and the presence of those kits there,
we managed to save that life.
So,
again, I'm sure steps will be taken to address this issue which is national and
which is growing. Certainly, we're not immune to it. Thankfully, we do have good
front-line staff here reacting on a day-to-day basis.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, our first
responders have done an exemplary job. In fact, many lives have been saved as a
result of their efforts but there are still lives being lost during this crisis.
Public
engagement and education needs to be much stronger as well. Government's
fentanyl information sheet that has been sent to schools is not adequate. It's
poorly presented and even suggests that media reports have been inaccurate on
this issue.
Will the
Minister of Education commit to immediately improving information and resources
available to our schools and available to our educators?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
interesting the Member opposite references the information sheet that has the
Department of Health and Community Services stamp on the bottom. As recently as
yesterday, we have edited it and revised it in the light of feedback and will
continue to do so.
If the
Member opposite has some constructive comments as to how he would like us to
edit it, please feel free to let me know. It's a work in progress.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I'm relieved to
hear that it's being revised and I'm happy to help with that process.
People
are dying. Despite the minister's statements back in January, the crisis is here
and it's real.
Will the
Premier immediately establish a new task force, coordinating efforts between the
government departments of Health, Justice, Education, Children, Seniors and
Social Development, and engaging key community partners like the SWAP and Street
Reach?
We need
to move much faster. We need stronger action and we need leadership now.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When you
look at how you respond to any particular actions, the swiftest way to do it is
leave it in the hands of a minister, like our Minister of Health and Community
Services. As the Member opposite just talked about, what is required is swift
action to this real tsunami, as some people would call it, sweeping across our
nation.
The
department will be responding, but we will give every single Member, every
single Member an opportunity to feed into what some people are calling a crisis,
Mr. Speaker.
One life
lost is one life too many. Let's get to work together on this particular issue.
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.
The
Chief Medical Examiner's office is currently being reviewed by the Chief Medical
Examiner of Nova Scotia who has already pointed to a serious problem with
understaffing.
I ask
the Premier: Will he commit to putting the necessary resources in place
immediately when the report comes out to ensure the proper functioning of this
office?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
happy to speak to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. It certainly is an
important office in this province, and it's one that I actually discussed very
recently during the three hours of Budget Estimates.
The fact
is that this office has been understaffed and in dire need of help for years.
It's been neglected for years, certainly by a previous administration. One of
the first things I did as minister was order a review of the office after we had
a very serious case that many people in the province are aware of.
Dr.
Matthew Bowes has agreed to take on the report and he will be providing us with
a recommendation soon. I look forward to receiving that report, and I will
certainly be taking it seriously. Upon receiving those recommendations, we will
take the necessary actions to ensure the office continues to perform its
mandate.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, End Homelessness
St. John's, Point-In-Time Count showed at least 800 people experience
homelessness in this city in a year, and at least double that across the
province. The federal National Housing Strategy is committing $2 billion towards
preventing and ending homelessness.
I ask
the minister: Will she commit to a specific plan to end homelessness in her
promised new provincial housing strategy, and will she commit to a timeline for
its release?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Everyone
has a right to access safe and affordable housing in this province, Mr. Speaker.
We are working alongside our federal partners to address housing and
homelessness. We understand the needs of the vulnerable population.
I take
this opportunity to thank groups like End Homelessness St. John's, Sheldon
Pollett, Bruce Pearce and Shawn Skinner, for doing the Point-In-Time Count. I
myself attended that event, Mr. Speaker, and we acknowledge the results of that
event.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm still
waiting to hear for a commitment for a plan to end homelessness.
Mr.
Speaker, a shocking number of homelessness started in youth. Recommendation 46
of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions asks government
departments to establish standards that include collaboration and evidence-based
practices so programs and services are geared to young people's needs wherever
they live.
I ask
the minister: Will she commit to a specific plan for housing and homelessness
for youth in her promised provincial housing strategy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, we are
constantly reviewing our programs and our policies to ensure they are current
and responsive to the needs of youth. It is in my mandate letter, Mr. Speaker.
So, yes,
I do commit to the words that are in my mandate letter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: Because 70 per cent of homeless youth have been receiving services
from child protection services, yet ended up homeless, will see commit to
reinstating prevention as a key mandate in her child and youth system so that
vulnerable families can receive more help so as to prevent this high incidence
of youth homelessness?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, we just recently
conducted a legislative review of the
Children and Youth Care and Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, under that review
we will address these needs and concerns.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister, will she re-evaluate and adapt the policies in Child Protection
Services to better serve the needs of youth transitioning to early adulthood?
This program is not serving their needs well.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, under the review
we did look at the youth service program and we will be ensuring the needs of
youth are met. Under the review of the CYCP act, this will be addressed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
I call on the Member for
Topsail Paradise to present his private Member's resolution.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to rise today to bring forward a private Member's resolution which has
been tabled and notified in the House.
BE IT
RESOLVED that this House condemn the government for maintaining all but one of
the 300 tax and fee increases they imposed on people in last year's budget while
failing to be forthright and accountable in disclosing information and while
failing to nurture the conditions for economic growth across Newfoundland and
Labrador.
It was
moved by myself, and seconded by my colleague for Cape St. Francis.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an important private Member's resolution. We didn't take this
lightly. As an Opposition, we get to utilize certain House of Assembly
procedures to question government but also to discuss some of the decisions of
government and some of the alternatives that government had to the decisions and
choices they've made, because in government it is very much about choices. It's
about selecting your choices and making your decisions as you govern as you
lead, as you make your plans, which is a budget. You do your Speech from the
Throne and your budget usually follows and then you make your decisions.
What we
have in place today is a government that had promised, as an Opposition party,
campaigned and promised that they would not increase taxes. In fact, we had a
plan to increase taxation on HST. We were going to increase taxes, HST by 2 per
cent as part of our choices to move forward, and, when doing so, made it quite
clear to the people of the province the very difficult, difficult times that
Newfoundland and Labrador was about to face as a province, the challenges we
faced with significant reductions in oil.
In 2016,
the Liberal government of the day enjoyed four times the oil production than we
had in 2015. They had stronger pricing. World prices were set by, no one
anywhere near or anything to do with Newfoundland and Labrador, but world prices
that are set and that had significant impact and improvement for the government
in 2016, one that we wrestled with in 2015.
So one
of the things we were going to do was to increase the HST, but they chastised us
heavily for doing so. They chastised us heavily for making the decision to do
so, and even the current Finance Minister, who was in Opposition back at the
time, stood here in the House on many occasions and talked about how it was the
wrong thing to do to the economy.
Then a
short time later, they get elected in 2015, they quickly reverse the HST and
then realize: Uh-oh, we shouldn't have done that. We made a decision without
having the basis or doing the research or thinking it through, and we have to
reverse that. Not only did they do that, but they increased 300 fees in our
province and put on, I think it was 50 new fees.
Mr.
Speaker, our province went through tremendous growth back in the 2000s. From
around 2005, 2006, things started to turn around, and for the decade that
followed we saw significant improvement in the economy. People began to enjoy a
higher level of resources and salaries, most people, than they had experienced
previously. While doing so, at the same time people also had experienced a
reduction in taxes.
The
philosophy and our belief was is that the lower you make taxes, the more
disposable income that people have to use and drive the economy. So instead of
taking that money and putting it directly into taxation, putting it directly
into the bank account of the government, to operate government spending, it
flows through the economy. Those extra taxes and fees, instead of someone
writing a cheque I know a lot of people just did their income tax; some people
are probably still doing them. It's late now, but some people are probably still
doing them. I heard from numerous people who said when they got through their
taxes and they got to the line on the levy, they went, uh-oh, all of a sudden
it's real again.
So
instead of taking that money and using it in the economy, through local
business, your corner store, your grocery store, your hardware store, a
restaurant, a service provider, a show or entertainment or a theatre of some
type, or in a mall or shopping or buying gas or buying a new car, whatever the
case may be, then that money went, not through the economy and drive the economy
to the benefit of government, but it went directly into the coffers of
government.
Because
when someone takes a certain amount of money if I go to the corner store or if
I go to the hardware store and make a purchase, I pay taxes. So a portion of
that money now goes back to government, and in buying that item and paying those
taxes, it also creates a job. That person pays taxes off their salary, and then
that person goes out and spends their salary which creates taxes and so on.
So we
firmly believe that the money people have and the more opportunity to take that
money and circulate it through the economy and through the community, it creates
jobs. It creates a stronger economy. It creates a better province and it drives
growth, which is key.
During
those years leading up to the difficult oil years of 2015, we saw a lot of that.
Housing starts were booming and car sales were booming and restaurants were
doing good and people were driving the economy and taxes were lower.
Members
opposite have criticized us for doing that.
I don't
remember them every saying, back when they were in Opposition in the early days,
put up taxes because they always said don't put them up, and we saw that in 2015
as I talked about. We saw that when they were in Opposition and we were
government, and we said well, the economy is moving and changing. They're
challenges with oil and we have to keep the economy going.
There
was another opportunity that the government had that they didn't utilize, and
they could have went to Ottawa. Nova Scotia, who just announced they're going to
the polls in the end of May, the campaign up there is off to a rough start for
some, but they just did their balanced budget. They just did a balanced budget
in Nova Scotia. They received $1.8 billion in equalization.
Now, the
Member for Bonavista stood in his place today and I think he said the deficit
was going to be $2.8 billion, I think he said this morning, was the number he
used at one point; $2.8 billion. I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, where he got that
number, but nothing could be further from the truth. He talked about fear
mongering and stuff and he was giving a shining example, as he was doing, and
nothing could be further from the truth.
Our
deficit was going to be in the $1.8 billion range in 2015, but we knew it was
important to run a deficit because we didn't want to crush the economy. We
didn't want to crush the economy and bring the economy to a spiraling start by
doing this knee-jerk, very quick, harsh move that cause people to panic and fear
and be upset and worried and so on. All of what we've seen in the last year that
happened to our economy. Everything that we saw happen in the last year.
We were
running a $1.8 billion deficit in 2015. It happens to be almost exactly the same
amount of equalization that Nova Scotia gets this year and they balanced their
budget. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that if we had that equalization here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, we wouldn't be having all the discussions about
difficulties in the economy today, we'd be still talking about, hopefully, the
Liberals, instead of talking about taxes and fees and 300 news fees and taxes
and stuff if they had chosen an option to go fight for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians to represent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in Ottawa, to take
the battle to the front in Ottawa and we've seen that happen. We know in the
fishery that happened when other provinces took their battle to the front in
Ottawa. They went to Ottawa saying don't give Newfoundland and Labrador its
fishery fund.
I won't
go down the road of the fishery today, Mr. Speaker, because this is about taxes
and fees. We know other provinces fought, other provincial leaders fought for
their provinces, went to Ottawa and fought for their people. Atlantic Canadian
premiers went to Ottawa, went and fought for the people of their province and we
never got the fund, we lost the fund. It was another example of where was our
Premier and our government, and when were they going to go to Ottawa and fight
for us.
Equalization was an option, Mr. Speaker. Equalization was an option and going to
Ottawa and saying you need to change the rules. Now, Members opposite the
Premier has gotten up and said: Where were you in 2013? You never went to Ottawa
and did anything. Not true either, Mr. Speaker. Well, I suppose it's true to a
point because it was actually 2012 that the Finance minister of the day,
Minister Tom Marshall, the Finance minister of the day actually went to Ottawa
and entered in negotiations with Finance ministers and the federal government
and presented on equalization and how equalization plans could change and so on.
We know
the Members opposite have said it's in legislation. Now they said the same thing
about the levy, it's in legislation. We have a bill before the House now to
change the gas tax. Even though there was a new gas tax implemented last year,
we now have a bill before the House this year to change the gas tax. That's what
legislatures do.
Even
though the government created a gas tax last year, and now they have a bill
before the House this year to change that legislation from last year, that's
what governments do, Mr. Speaker. They could do it on the levy and the federal
government could do it on equalization, if we had someone in our province
fighting for us in Ottawa.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
If we had it. Instead, Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals
MR. KING:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the Member for Bonavista to refrain from further comments; otherwise, I will
sanction the Member.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, they had choices they could have made, choices other than hammering the
people of the province with fees and taxes. They chose to increase the gas tax,
probably one of the most significant ones. It impacts everybody. When I think
about the gas tax I think about the person who the last 10 years, before this
government came and when we were in power, when we took over government in 2003
from the Liberals Newfoundland and Labrador had the worst level of poverty in
Canada, the worst level. And the Premier of the day Premier Williams, so we
know who we are talking about said we're going to fix that; we're going to
change that. A lot of people kind of shook their heads: Well, how are you going
to do that? We're going to take on poverty; we're going to take it on.
Mr.
Speaker, by the time we left office in 2015 and they took over we went from the
worst in Canada to the best in Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
We went from the worst level
of poverty to the lowest level of poverty in Canada. And I think about the
people all the time who worked hard to supply for their own families and
children on their own and not have to rely on social programs. There were
numerous programs, too much to get into today and I don't have time to do it
here because I only have three minutes left.
Mr.
Speaker, I think about those people who are trying to keep their car going so
they can take their kids to school themselves, they can go to the grocery store
and they don't have to rely on government providing a taxi chip for them, or
they don't have to rely on someone else to do it, trying to keep their own car
going.
Then
they have to go and pay taxes on their insurance, they got to go pay taxes on
their gas, and they have to pay higher taxes on every repair and every other
(inaudible) to keep their car going. That's that ones I think about. But they
were choices, Mr. Speaker, that were made by the government.
There
were several changes. There are some changes, Mr. Speaker, that are not going to
be applicable until 2017. People realize this again as they did their taxes in
the last couple of months, people who were doing their income taxes and filing
their taxes, they saw the levy. Also there's a new increase, we know, in income
tax that takes place so people haven't still haven't seen or felt the full
impact of all the tax increases and fees that will occur.
On
insurance, as I mentioned, there was a retail sales tax of 15 per cent put on
taxes. Insurance companies as well had a 1 per cent increase on their own
revenue that they because they pay a separate revenue, and, Mr. Speaker,
that's passed on to the people who own the insurance policies as well. If it
costs the insurance companies more to operate because there was an increase on
the taxes people don't know; insurance companies pay a tax to the government
and the tax is based on revenue, so now they increase their revenue, they pay a
higher level of taxes or if their revenue stays the same they are still paying a
higher level of taxes but someone has to pay for that. We know that always
filters down to the consumer, to the person who needs the insurance on the car.
Mr.
Speaker, we know about the gas tax and then there was always, of course, the
book tax. We talked about the book tax and we saw a book tax the only one in
Canada. We are first in something, I suppose, but the only one in Canada.
But the
government had choices because they talk about a healthier society and building
I fully believe in that. I try to stay active and live a balanced lifestyle
and do all that kind of stuff. I know Members opposite do. Some are good runners
and athletes and have great athletic pasts and so on, and some try to do that.
They could have picked a sugar tax, or as some people know it, a sugary drink
tax.
I know
the Minister of Finance has commented in the past that it's convoluted and
difficult to tax. Well, we have a tax for cigarettes, we have a tax for beer and
alcohol and we have a tax for recycling. We have lots of fees and taxes that are
one-off and I don't know why they couldn't create a sugary drink tax.
I know
from the studies and the evaluations and the results that I've read over the
last few months and I've seen some that have come across my desk from time to
time and I've taken the time to look at them is that they've proven beneficial
for a number of reasons. It shows that there's a reduced consumption of sugar
which we know is not good for healthy growth, especially for young people.
Mr.
Speaker, we have more we're going to say on this this afternoon. I'm looking
forward to hearing debate from the Members opposite and the Third Party. The
Independent Member may speak to it as well. I look forward; we think it's an
important bill because Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, of the 300 taxes and
fees that were put on it last year, 299½ are still there today.
The
government has done nothing to reduce the burden on Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians; they've done nothing to reduce the tax burden. That's why we've
raised this today. It's an important issue and it's one we're going to use our
time this afternoon to debate.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly always a privilege to stand in this House and speak to any
legislation. It's also a privilege to speak and participate in a private
Member's debate as we are today.
I will
say, Mr. Speaker, that there's a certain sense as one of my colleagues pointed
out of irony in the fact that the words in the Member's motion include the
words condemn, failing and disclosing information. It's an ironic choice
of words considering that it was the Members opposite in government that refused
to release Public Accounts in advance of the election, despite the fact that
they have a requirement to do so.
As a
matter of fact, we, in the last year, have updated and improved the performance
of financial transparency considerably over where the former administration
went. Certainly, maybe if they had disclosed to the people of the province the
truth about the financial circumstances that every single person in this
province finds themselves in, then maybe people of the province would have
understood and been prepared for some of the difficult choices that our
government had to make last year.
Madam
Speaker, over the last two years and in the wake of this very serious fiscal
situation facing our province, our government has taken a smart and focused
approach to financial management. The magnitude of the fiscal challenge that we
inherited cannot be understated. The inability and the inconsistency of the
former administration to manage a financial plan left our province to deal with
an unprecedented deficit, unprecedented borrowing requirements and unprecedented
fiscal pressures. We were forced to make difficult decisions because of the
cultivation of an unsustainable culture of spending and the results of 12 years
of poor fiscal management by the former administration.
Madam
Speaker, they allowed their expenses to grow some $600 million in one year,
including banking on savings that they never had a plan on how they were
actually going to save that money. The Auditor General, multiple think tanks and
business organizations have raised concerns about that government's spending on
multiple occasions. Over the past 10 years, the previous government spent at a
rate that was 20 to 26 per cent per capita higher than any other province 20
to 26 per cent. By planning six deficits over 12 years, while unpredictable oil
royalties grew, the former administration created a culture of spending in the
absence of good fiscal planning.
One of
the reports that were released by, for example, the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, said that the PC administration overspent by about $11
billion from 2003 to 2014. In 2014, the provincial government overspending had
cost Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers $1.6 billion. In 2014-15, before our
government took office, our province had the highest per capita expenditures on
programs in the country, at $13,200 per person. The CFIB report from 2014 stated
that the prospect of tax increases is real, but it need not have been this way
if spending was held to the reasonable benchmark and population, Madam Speaker.
So we
see very clearly the pattern that occurred which led to a situation that our
government found itself in as we headed into
Budget 2016; years of overspending left us with very difficult
decisions to be made to secure our province's financial footing. Yes, we could
have taken the easy way out and we could have ignored the situation and passed
the problem onto future generations.
That's
what Members opposite did, Madam Speaker, but we didn't, because our government
cares too much about the province and our future to take the easy way out. What
we are doing is working to fix the mistakes made by the PC government and return
the province to fiscal stability. It is our government that chose to make some
very difficult and responsible decisions for the long-term benefit of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and these decisions began with
Budget 2016.
We made
some hard choices, and these were not easy decisions, but they were decisions
that had to be made, and Budget 2016
included measures to increase our revenue while we took the time necessary to
focus on reducing expenditures. The facts are that
Budget 2016 announced modifications to approximately 300 fees, but
it is important to note that approximately 240 of those fees were already on the
books. From a comprehensive perspective, Budget 2016 fee modifications resulted in an estimated increase from
$76.4 million to $95.7 million. Across all fees, that raised $19.3 million on an
annualized basis.
Let's
just put that in comparative terms for a second.
Budget 2015 fee modifications
implemented by the former administration jumped from $88.8 million to $107.3
million an aggregate basis. They increased fees, Madam Speaker, by approximately
21 per cent on an annual basis. That's a 4 per cent difference between
2015-2016, yet the Opposition would have you believe this government's fee and
tax increase in Budget 2016 was
completely outrageous and unfounded.
As I
previously noted, Madam Speaker, there were hard decisions that had to be made
that impacted the people of the province and we are not denying that. However,
because this government made those decisions and have committed to a smart,
focused approach to fiscal management, we have and continue to make some solid
strides when it comes to this province's financial picture.
As we
stated as part of Budget 2017, we are
now on the path to gain control of our finances and strike a balance of better
spending control and valuable investments. We have reduced government expenses
by $81 million last year and a further $283 million in this budget, and we will
continue to build efficiencies and to change the culture of spending. Our
priority is to find balance in reducing spending while making smart and
important investments in our community to help the economy thrive.
As
announced in Budget 2017, our
borrowing requirements have been reduced from $2 billion down to $400 million.
We are currently ahead of our forecast in terms of deficit projections, and we
are on track to return the province back to surplus in 2022-23.
Most
recently, I am very pleased to highlight that in the report released by the C.D.
Howe Institute, an organization that assesses the quality of various
governments' financial information and their success or failure in achieving
budgetary goals, this government scored a B grade in 2017, up from an E grade in
2016 and a D grade in 2015. The report assesses whether individuals can get
valid, timely and readily understood figures for total revenue and spending in
the budget each government presents at the beginning of the year and in public
accounts at the end of the year.
It was
noted that Newfoundland and Labrador has improved markedly, particularly with
the quality and timeliness of its budget and public accounts documents. I remind
the Members of this House, that it was the former administration that refused to
release public accounts in a timely manner.
Our
government is continuously working to improve on how we present financial
information to the people of this province. As was evident in the tabling, as I
said earlier, of the public accounts last year, the earliest time that public
accounts has been tabled in 18 years. The result of the report for Newfoundland
and Labrador is a significant accomplishment that our government is very proud
of.
Madam
Speaker, as part of this path to better financial management, we want to make it
clear, we are listening and we are responsive to the needs of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians. In fact, a perfect example of how we are listening to the
people of the province is our promised reduction in the temporary gas tax
announced in Budget 2017. We committed
to the people of the province that we would review the temporary gas tax on a
regular basis, and as soon as we were able to reduce that temporary tax we would
do so.
In 2017,
residents of this province will benefit from two reductions in the temporary gas
tax. Beginning this June, we will reduce it by 8½ cents per litre and on
December 1, 2017, we will reduce it by a further 4 cents per litre, for a total
reduction of 12.5 cents before HST. And we will review the remaining 4 cents as
part of the 2017 fall fiscal and economic update.
Madam
Speaker, that represents a 75 per cent reduction in the temporary gas tax by the
end of the calendar year. This will provide residents with more disposable
income, ultimately providing for a positive impact on the provincial economy.
Madam
Speaker, we continue our efforts to address our fiscal situation to secure a
prosperous future for all future generations. Our focus will always be on
positioning our province to be an ideal place to raise a family, have a
competitive work and business environment. We have established a vision for
sustainability and growth in this province, but in order to achieve that we must
have a solid foundation to work from, and that solid foundation is strong fiscal
management.
As
outlined in The Way Forward, this
government must redefine and continue to address the economic, social and fiscal
challenges. Government services must be redefined to do that, and strong fiscal
management is a top priority.
Madam
Speaker, as the Member of this House of Assembly who last year had to sign
documents that added to the provincial debt, over $4 billion, I can assure the
people of the province that we, and our government, are doing everything we can
to ensure we get our spending under control, that we are providing services in
an efficient way within the confines of the tax of the envelopes of revenues we
have, and we're being responsible in forecasting oil prices and oil royalties,
which we've learned, and history has proven, are very cyclical revenues.
For the
Members opposite to continue to avoid accountability for their role in the
situation that our children in this province find themselves, our families in
this province find themselves, our seniors in this province find themselves, I
think is a testament to the inability of the Members opposite of understanding
the full scope of the situation they left the province in under their over a
decade of leadership.
I'll go
back to what I opened with, Madam Speaker. The irony of this private Member's
resolution, condemn, fail, disclose information, I would suggest that those
words more aptly address and are targeted towards the former administration who
chose to make decisions that were not in the best interest of the people of the
province.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The Speaker
recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
Indeed,
it's a pleasure to get up again and represent the beautiful District of Cape St.
Francis and the beautiful people in the District of Cape St. Francis.
It's
very interesting listening to the Minister of Finance. I don't know if she's
listening to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but I know I am, and I know
my colleagues here on this side are, and for her to talk about spending and the
problems we have with our spending. When I looked at last year's budget, there
was an increase in spending. That was your budget, and not compared to years
before. That was your budget that you increased spending. If you had such a
great thing with spending this year, you would have reduced it even more, but
last year the spending in the budget was more than it was the previous year.
She
talked about hard choices. I'll tell you what hard choices are. Hard choices are
what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are making today. Hard choices are
what they're making today when it comes to the amount of money they have to
spend. The hard choices are what were taken out of their pockets last year.
Like I
said here this morning, there was $6,000 taken out of the average household in
this province $6,000. That's a lot of money. Do you know what, Madam Speaker?
There are a lot of hard choices being made by our families, our seniors and our
young people. There are a lot of hard choices being made.
What
this private Member's motion here today is about, it's about all the stuff
basically that was done last year, because the only difference between this
budget and last year's budget is the gas tax.
Listen,
any time we eliminate what it costs people in this province, I applaud it. I
applaud it because people just can't afford it. I'm not sure, I could be wrong;
I think we have the highest gas all across Canada. I know we do when you look at
provinces here in Eastern Canada. Do you know what? That makes it hard for
everybody, because that makes it hard for people who are out there doing
business and they have to distribute food and distribute everything else.
There's an added cost on to it, so that cost gets transferred down on to the
common person that also has to pay all these fees and charges and everything
else that was put in this last year.
Madam
Speaker, when the minister gets up and she talks about families and seniors and
everything else, I really believe and I really believe this right from my
heart last year they just came into government without a plan. They came into
government without any idea of what they were going to do and the effects that
they were going to have on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I don't
think they thought about the effects of increasing taxes on insurance. I really
don't think they thought about how that affects people on fixed incomes. It
affects every sort; young families, young people trying to get a start in life
with a new vehicle and the extra cost and stuff like that. I don't think they
had a plan. I don't think they ever looked at it.
We look
at we always try to make everybody listen, education is priority. For me,
anyway, being a parent, I felt that education is a priority. As a parent, it's
so important for me to do everything I can to make sure that my children have
the best opportunities that they have in life. As parents, that's the way we
are. We'll sacrifice what we have for our children. That's who we are, we all do
it. I'm sure every Member in this House would do it.
When you
look at what they're doing on this book tax, that's unbelievable. We're the only
province in Canada with a book tax. I mean seriously, the best thing you can do
for your children is to have them read, especially at a young age. Everyone here
will agree with that.
You look
at young families. I know when my kids were young we read to them all the time.
All the time reading to your children because that's an important way, it opens
up a lot of avenues for them. When they get to school it's a real important part
of kindergarten that your children are ready to go there. So we added this extra
cost to our families.
This is
what we're talking about here today. We're talking about all these increases in
fees. Again, when I look at education, it's simple things. It might be simple to
some and maybe not.
Last
year we eliminated the apprentice program. We eliminated any scholarships that a
person in the apprentice program could get. A very, very simple little thing, we
eliminated it. We eliminated and reduced all the scholarships that were given to
our post-secondary.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
I let the Member get up and
speak. Give me the courtesy to speak will you, please? I ask the Member for
Labrador West, give me the opportunity to speak.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Pursuant
to Standing Order 49 any noise that disrupts this House is unparliamentary and
if the Speaker has to rise again, she will name Members and they will not be
permitted to speak for the remainder of the afternoon.
I do
remind the Member for Cape St. Francis to direct his comments to the Chair.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I understand, yes.
This is
so important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I think all of us
should have the opportunity to speak on this budget. I think we all should be
up. We all get about an hour to speak and I think every Member in this House
should take their full hour to explain to their constituents, and explain to
people in Newfoundland how they feel about this budget.
It's
important and while I get heckled and stuff like that, I'm talking about what
effects this budget is having on everyday Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the
people in this province who are concerned about it and wanting to stay in this
province.
So I'm
concerned about what is happening in education; I'm very concerned about what is
happening in education. We came through an education system where we did some
great strides in reducing the cap size in schools, reducing the size of classes
and it's great because you talk to educators I can remember going to school
myself when there were 40 in our class. Back then, I don't think we got the
education, got the care, the consideration and the thought that came from our
educators with 40 in the class, so it got reduced.
Last
year, that changed again, it was up again so that there are larger class sizes.
If you talk to some teachers and when they combined classes, that's a strain on
our educators also a huge strain on our educators.
Madam
Speaker, there are a lot of things in this budget that really I have to say have
an effect on individuals. If you look at the little things that we're doing,
I'll give you an example. I'll just show you. There's the document that was
given to us last year. There are 300 different items in this document that
showed where they reduced or where they cut different things in different
programs. Now, this year, we got absolutely nothing. They didn't give us
anything. We're told basically to go to Estimates and have a look and see where
they cut all the programs. Every day we're here in Estimates, we find out
different things all the time.
I look
at one little thing, and I know it's going to be small and people may think it's
small, but I look at the Jumpstart Program. To me, I mentioned this morning
about how recreation is important, but it's also important to people who don't
have the proper money. I know minor hockey down my way, they do it. They have a
little program that if a person can't afford to get into minor hockey, it could
be soccer, it could be something like that, that there is some kind of a little
fund for them.
Last
year, cutting the Jumpstart Program I think it was $350,000. I wonder how many
children did that eliminate from getting involved and being able to participate
in the sports with their fellow students and their friends and stuff like that.
These are the things we cut.
MR. PETTEN:
Girl Guides.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Girl Guides, you're right.
There are different programs they could get involved in.
So those
are the little things that we cut. Those are the things that are going to make
sure stronger and we're going to be better off and everything else because we
cut stuff like that.
I want
to talk today a little bit too about the fishery. In last year's, right here,
there was so many things cut and every department is mentioned here, but I'm
going to just find now where the fishery is and I'm going to tell you the few
things this is a very important time in our fishery. It's huge actually.
The
fishery today is in crisis, according to the minister. Last year, we reduced
grants for research. It was the wrong time to do it; wrong time to reduce any of
these grants that we have for the fishing industry. We reduced the seafood
development program. There was money taken out of that.
Now,
I've been in the House for a while asking all kinds of questions and I think the
minister definitely agrees with me in saying that this time in our fishery is
probably the most crucial time in our history. We're trying to be able to
transfer from one species to another. There are all kinds of research that needs
to be done. Like, we need to do research on the effect that groundfish is having
on crab and shrimp.
Last
year, I told a story about how I was in and we were filleting a fish and we
found eight baby crabs in the belly of a fish. We have to do research on the
effect of the capelin that we're catching. Should we be catching capelin? Should
we not be catching capelin? I know it's a monetary gain for our province but
there are all kinds of research that we should be doing in that.
There
was another program last year that got eliminated altogether. It's called the
special assistance program; that's in the fishery too. What that did was a very
small I know it was small amounts of money but the program itself for harbour
authorities and different things; it gave them an opportunity if they needed a
pump. It was only small, little things, and I'm sure every Member who has a
wharf or has people fishing in their district that they availed of this program
because it cleaned things up and it made things right. It could be something
with a safety issue, whether it was some buoys or whatever you needed on the
wharf, from a lifeguard whatever you needed it was something that you could
add to the wharves to make things safe and people used it.
The
other one and this really astounds me because this year I'm fearful. I don't
know what's going to happen and I don't want to put any fear in our harvesters
or our plant workers in our rural communities, but we need to make sure that I
listened to the manager on Fogo Island talk about the amount of work this year
is going to be reduced big time. It's going to be reduced big time. He said two
shifts, maybe five.
There
was a reduction in the funding for the Workplace Adjustment Program. That was a
program that people could avail of, to be able to get some money available so
that people could get their unemployment insurance, people could go on forward
and survive this year. This is going to be a very difficult year and this is the
year we need to be investing in places like our rural Newfoundland, our fishery
and stuff like this. It's important.
There
was a reduction last year also for the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystem Research.
I talked about that a little bit there a little while ago about the capelin. I
believe that the capelin I'd like to see the capelin come back because I know
the cod would prefer to eat capelin rather than shrimp and crab. That would mean
a big difference for anything that can improve and make sure that the reduction
in crab.
I also
think there should be money invested into research. I know we say, okay, all the
research is going to be done by the federal government now, but I think it's
wrong. I think it's wrong that we rely only on the federal government; we should
be doing it ourselves. This is important. We should be doing this research
ourselves. We did it with the Celtic
Explorer. It's important that we continue.
All
these things that I just named off that time, I know they were eliminated last
year in the budget. They were taken out of the budget. This year there's nothing
going back. There are no investments this year in any of this stuff. I asked the
Minister of Fisheries, he said we're going to have 22 I'm not sure if it was
18 or 22 researchers down in White Hills down at DFO. How many do you have now?
I think we have 11. What are they doing? I'm not really sure what they're doing
yet.
This is
a time in our history that we need to invest. It's a time we need to invest in
our people. It's time, we need to invest. Last year we cut it all out. Everybody
looks at our budget last year and we had out on the front steps of
Confederation Building, they marched right up the walk, right up through the
Parkway, they came in here. I can tell you the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, the 300 items that are here are still here, except for half the gas
tax. They're still here.
Last
year, we're very fortunate in this budget that offshore oil brought us some
revenue. We're very fortunate the price of oil went up a bit. We're very
fortunate that there was production, a lot of production. Four times what it was
the year before. So we got a lucky break. Hopefully next year, please God next
year it'll be ten times, and please God next year it's but there are
investments in our province that we need to make and we should be making, and we
shouldn't reduce. They could be in education, they could be in fishery, they
could be in our children, they could be in our seniors and we shouldn't be doing
it.
I
believe that the Minister of Finance, while she got up and she said about what a
great job we've done in doing this. I don't think she understands the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the needs of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We shouldn't be doing what we're doing to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, and last year and this year is too much.
Thank
you very much, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I'm just
going to stand for a second and I know my good friend, the Member for Cape St.
Francis, I can't stand here and listen to that about the Minister of Finance.
Last night, Sir, you were in Estimates. When you asked about the Fishery Fund, I
told you that if you needed anything about the fishery fund for people who were
laid off from the shrimp or the crab, that if we haven't got enough in the
community enhancement there is a contingency fund, which you called a slush
fund, to help out the workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's in Hansard.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
So to stand up today and say
that the Minister of Finance is not concerned and not worried about the people
of rural Newfoundland and Labrador
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
after I explained that to
him last night. I explained it to him. We said what the Minister of Finance did
in the contingency fund, which they all called a slush fund, that we used for
the I just can't stand here and let the Minister of Finance take that, because
it's not true. The fund was there. The fund will be used for people who need
help in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker.
I could
tell you, Madam Speaker, I challenge anybody. I challenge anybody in this House
of Assembly to check Hansard, and that's the answer I gave last night. The
Minister of Finance, I thanked her, because she had the foresight to put that in
just in case that happened. It's in Hansard, last night in Estimates in
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
The
Member knows that because I told him that last night, and standing up today and
saying there's nothing there is absolutely, categorically false false. Let's
get that straight. Let's not talk about fear mongering about the fisheries
around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I can tell you that.
If I'm
saying anything wrong, stand up and say I didn't bring that up last night.
Here's your opportunity. Stand up as a gentleman, as an hon. Member in this
House of Assembly, stand up and say I did not say last night, as the minister,
that we have a contingency fund. If we need money for the fishery, the money is
there. Stand up and say what I said, as an hon. Member.
It can't
be done. So, Minister of Finance, don't you worry. We know that fund is there to
help out the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, I'll get
back to what I was going to say.
I was
back, Madam Speaker, to 2002. I'll tell you what I'm going to relate this to.
I'm going to relate this to the Minister of Finance, directly to the Minister of
Finance who's sitting to my right.
In 2002,
we were going into an election in 2003. Everybody in the province knew it. There
were cuts coming at the time. Clyde Wells was the premier at the time. I
remember everybody going: Premier, we got an election
AN HON. MEMBER:
Roger Grimes.
MR. JOYCE:
It was 1992, it was. Sorry,
1992, Clyde Wells.
Everybody was going to him saying: We got an election in '93, you can't make
these cuts. I remember going to Gillams, driving with the premier, and I said:
Here's what everybody is saying, all the caucus they're asking me because I
had a good rapport with the premier. I didn't mind speaking my mind with the
premier and being honest. I went to the premier and I said: Here's what people
are saying and this is what reminds me of our current Minister of Finance.
Do you
know what he said to me? Eddie, he said, I'd rather lose the election with
honesty than win it with dishonesty. And that's what this Minister of Finance
she's being honest with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
She's being totally honest to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Don't you ever think, anyone in this
province, that me and her don't have our tits-for-tats coming to each other.
Don't ever think we don't, we do. I can tell you one thing, don't ever question
her integrity, don't ever question her commitment to get Newfoundland and
Labrador back on the road. Because I can tell you, every time I hear the
minister stand up and say: Here's the facts. It reminds me so much of Clyde
Wells when he said: I'd rather lose with honesty than win with dishonesty.
I give
credit now to the Minister of Finance, because you remind me, every time when
you stand up and fight people like me who wants more and more, and says: We
can't because our grandchildren are going to have to pay for it if we do that.
That's what I remember about the minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Just going on, I have to put
my glasses on for this because I want to read it right. The C.D. Howe financial
report card, this is about the Minister of Finance now and the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
In a
report by the C.D. Howe Institute this week that assesses the quality of various
government's financial information and their success or failure in achieving
budgetary goals, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador scored a B grade
for 2017, up from an E and up from a D in 2015, Madam Speaker. That's what C.D.
Howe has said about it.
The
report looks at the relevance, accessibility, timeliness and reliability of
government's financial reports across the country. And this minister has
brought us up to a B, a high level across Canada, Madam Speaker.
I know
the Members opposite want to use the Minister of Finance
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
I know, Madam Speaker
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker is having trouble
hearing the minister. I ask people for their co-operation.
MR. JOYCE:
I know, Madam Speaker. Some
of them over there may be shouting because they heard all this last night when I
told them in Estimates the same thing. They're standing up today saying they
never heard it. I can understand why they're a bit bored about it because what
they're saying here today, they heard it all last night about that contingency
fund for the workers and the fish plant people of the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Madam
Speaker, I just want to talk about one they're talking about the number of
fees. How many fees were already in by the PC Party that they brought in? It's
astounding. They think we brought in all these 300 fees. What a false statement
to make that we brought in these fees. It's absolutely, categorically false.
Madam
Speaker, I'm going to pass you on to something here now. I'm going to tell you
something and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you know the largest
fee that the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are ever going
to have? You know the largest fee?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Interest payments.
MR. JOYCE:
No. The largest fee the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to have: Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Muskrat Falls. When we came
in in December 2015, the Minister of Finance walked in two days later and said:
Guys, here's what we have to go over and take care of Muskrat Falls because it's
in a disaster. The Members opposite, four of them in the front benches who were
ministers, would not deal with it. We had to take money, put it over in Nalcor
just to try to save Muskrat Falls and what was happening.
I could
tell you now I'm not going to agree, I'm not going to say because I really
don't want to give a lot of credit to this person, but I have to give him credit
for saying this. I really don't. The Member for Mount Pearl Southlands stood
in this House of Assembly and said his colleagues on Muskrat Falls hoodwinked
him. Here's a Member, give him credit, he said it. He stood up in this House of
Assembly and said his four colleagues in front that are there now, the rest are
still around, hoodwinked him in the Muskrat Falls.
I ask
you, Madam Speaker, with the cost of the electricity going to rise, if his own
caucus, his own Cabinet, his own ministers, his own friends hoodwinked him, how
are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador supposed to know what was happening
with Muskrat Falls? How are we, as the Opposition, who were asking questions
upon questions upon questions couldn't get it? When we go to the Members
opposite they say, no, everything is good and the Members stand up and say he
was hoodwinked, he was absolutely hoodwinked by his own government.
You
wonder why we're in such financial straits we're in? You want to know that? When
their own caucus, who sat right there in that seat, Madam Speaker, sat in that
seat right there, they didn't even give him the full information of the Muskrat
Falls or the state of the financial statements of the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Still voted for it, though.
MR. JOYCE:
He still voted for it. He
voted for it. Didn't have a clue what he was voting for, but he voted for it.
That says about something else.
Madam
Speaker, I have to speak about this also. You were talking about the government.
We heard today about people possibly laying off managers. Here's the former
deputy premier bloated government, that's kind of on us. That was the
statement he made. Give him credit, he made the statement: bloated government.
So we see how the Minister of Finance had to come in and clean up this mess.
MR. KENT:
Point of order, Madam
Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
Member for Mount Pearl North on a point of order.
MR. KENT:
Madam Speaker, I'm sorry to
interrupt the Member. I'll say quickly that I did not make that statement. It
was a VOCM headline. I'd encourage him to see my full remarks. I'll have a
chance to speak further shortly.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order.
The hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
I understand the Member is
trying to defend his actions. I understand that.
Opposition health care critic Steve Kent admits, government is too big and the
former administration
MR. KENT:
Point of order.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
is partly to blame.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
Member for Mount Pearl North on a point of order.
MR. KENT:
Madam Speaker, the Speaker
has ruled repeatedly on using Member's names in this House of Assembly in recent
days. I'd ask for the minister's co-operation and respect for the House rules.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the Member to withdraw his comment.
MR. JOYCE:
I'll withdraw. I was just
reading what was on VOCM, Madam Speaker. I wasn't trying to disrespect the Chair
in any way; I was just reading what was in that.
It said:
He had called to question the uncertainty created by the Liberal government's
approach to tackling the provincial deficit. He, the former premier, the Member
for Mount Pearl North, says the bottom line is that government is too big
.
Now,
they're standing up on their own feet and criticizing the Minister of Finance
because they're doing what they didn't have, what we call intestinal fortitude,
what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would know as the guts to tackle the
problem in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Minister of Finance did.
That's
where I give credit to the Minister of Finance. She's making and she's doing the
actions and taking the necessary steps to put Newfoundland and Labrador on sound
footing which the government opposite just did not have the guts, the intestinal
fortitude, to do. They admitted it themselves within the last several months,
Madam Speaker. That's the kind of things you're talking about.
Can you
imagine them, the department the Members opposite stand up and say, well, the
federal government never helped us. Here's another opportunity. I like doing
this I like saying if I make a statement in this hon. House, it's to the best
of my knowledge. It's to the best of my knowledge if I ever make a statement in
this House. Here's an opportunity.
Any
Member opposite that its district did not get money from the Clean Water and
Wastewater Fund from the federal government who came in and put in hundreds of
millions in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to help us, stand up. Not
one can stand up because when they stand up and the Leader of the Opposition
loves to make all these fantasy statements: Oh, we should be in equalization. He
stood up to say the federal government never came to help us once. Not one
Member will stand up because the federal government, Judy Foote and the other
six MPs, came to bat for Newfoundland and Labrador, came to bat; every district
opposite got funds.
MR. KING:
They were waiting out in the
rain.
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Speaker, I have to
correct something. The Member for Bonavista they weren't out in the rain; It
was minus 30 degrees when Stephen Harper kicked him out. It wasn't out in the
rain.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
So let's get it straight.
When they want to stand up and say the federal government is not coming to help
us, it's absolutely, categorically not true. They had an opportunity to stand
and say what I'm saying is not.
Talking
about the equalization and there's more to come. Phase 2 is coming next year
for the water and sewer, federal government. I thank the federal government for
all their help. I thank the federal government because they understand our needs
with water and waste water. They understand our need for roads in this Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker. They understand that and they are
there with us. They're at the table.
Look at
the Fisheries Fund; $100 million we could spend now, more to come. They're
saying: Oh, that's not what we had. I ask any Member: Show me the cheque that
you got from Stephen Harper. Show us the cheque. Stand up and show us the
cheque. They won't stand up again.
Equalization is another thing I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about,
how we wouldn't go to equalization. The last opportunity we had to go to
equalization, they never showed up at the table.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
Members, if you want to have a conversation back and forth, please take it
outside the Chamber.
The hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Listen, I understand. I
understand them being upset but I am not standing here, I refuse to stand here
and let the Opposition make these false statements that were made in this House
of Assembly about how we wouldn't go to equalization. Madam Speaker, I'm just
not standing for it.
Now I
say to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and I say it very
sincerely I know I'm speaking on behalf of all Members here we had to make
tough decisions. I remember the President of the Bay of Islands Liberal
Association, Barry Wheeler, quit. He said it was a tough budget.
The
media called me outside and they said your president quit because it was a tough
budget. I said he's right, it is a tough budget, but I can tell you one thing,
we had to take the steps necessary necessary to ensure that we have
financial footing. If it's not for the people around this room because a lot of
us are up, it's for our kids and grandkids.
To the
Minister of the Finance: I know that you took a lot of heat over this but I can
tell you one thing, the statements by Clyde Wells ring a bell. Every time I hear
you speak it is that I'd rather lose with honesty than win with dishonesty,
which that Opposition tried to do on many occasions, Madam Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Point of order, Madam
Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North on a point of order.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I didn't
want to interrupt the Member again but I am rising on a point of order. He just
accused the Member for Cape St. Francis as having made false statements in this
House. That's unparliamentary language, Madam Speaker. It's also not true and
it's also disrespectful of the ruling that the Speaker has made in the last 24
hours. I'd respectfully ask the minister to withdraw the statement.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
First, I
suppose, I saw the order that you're going to stand on but I have no problem.
What I said was the Opposition made false statements. At no time would I ever
accuse
MR. KENT:
(Inaudible.)
MR. JOYCE:
I'm allowed to speak to the
point of order?
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker has recognized the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
I know
you're upset. Just relax. I would never make an aspiration about the Member for
Cape St. Francis. I would never do that. When I was talking about equalization,
if I offended somebody or someone thinks I made a false statement about the
Member for Cape St. Francis, here's what I'll do: I withdraw my statement. But
you'll review Hansard; I did not
mention the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I
recognize the hon. Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi I will say that I do
not appreciate the comments that I am hearing right now challenging the Speaker.
Showing partiality in this House is certainly something that is unparliamentary.
The hon.
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I am
very happy to stand. I'm going to do something which I've done before in the
House and some people may say: Why is she doing that? I do want to point out
that I do have a hearing disability and I wear hearing aids. When the House gets
raucous, as it has been getting today, I really cannot function. So I'm putting
that out there. I think we should acknowledge, too, that's probably true for
other people in the House as well. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I think this
is part of what we need to take into consideration when we stand here in the
House.
I'm very
happy to stand today and to speak to the private Member's motion that's been
brought forward by the Member for Topsail Paradise, as seconded by the Member
for Cape St. Francis. I will be supporting this motion, this resolution, because
I think it does speak a reality that we need to think about. I ask the Members
of the government side of the House to think about, especially when it talks
about the fact that the budget fails to nurture the conditions for economic
growth across Newfoundland and Labrador.
That's
what I want to speak to. It fails to nurture economic growth. There is nothing
in the budget that speaks to economic growth. It's not a budget designed for
growth, it's a budget designed for stopping. It's a budget designed based on
fear. It's a budget designed to get rid of a deficit that the government is
afraid of, to do that with a speed that cannot be good for the people of the
province and to do it at all costs.
I'm sure
the government is not deliberately trying to hurt people. I'm sure they believe
that what they're doing is right, that it's a way to go. I'd like to point out
to government that this kind of economic planning, fiscal planning, has been
proven over decades to not work.
Back in
the 1960s, '70s and into the '80s, you had our two international financial
bodies, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, promote a whole
direction for the poorer countries in the world, what were called Third World
countries, to promote programs that were called structural adjustment. What it
was all about was making sure that the market got its fair share and it didn't
matter that people were going to suffer in that process.
Unfortunately, that's what I see this budget to be. When the Minister of Finance
says our government did not take the easy way out, I want to point out that,
yes, the government did take the easy way out. It was much harder for them to
deal with the fact that you have to continue delivering services, you have to
continue taking care of people and you have to continue having strong social
programs. You cannot stop doing that. If you stop doing that, people are going
to suffer. But finding the way to do that and having the courage to take the
steps to do it, that's the hard way. That's not what the government did. The
government did take the easy way.
The one
that we're dealing with today in the Member's resolution is the 300 fees that
were laid on the backs of the people; some of them new fees, some of them
increases. That was easy. Not easy for the people of the province who have to
live with it, but easy for the government to do. It was simple to do. It's not
simple to try to deal with: How do we make our economy grow? That's difficult
and this government is not dealing with that. That's the part that's really
bothersome.
This
government, in 2016, put in a budget based on making money off the backs of the
people of the province and on cuts. They came into 2017 saying: Oh, look, we've
got an okay budget this time, but all the damage was done in 2016 because all of
those things have been left in place. All of the fees that were laid on people
back in 2016 have been kept in place.
In 2016,
that was the plan of this government, to take money from the people of the
province and to make cuts to the services in the province. That's the part
that's so unacceptable, to take money away from our social programs. To take
people out of the jobs who are doing the work of delivering our social programs.
That's not a plan for growth.
When I
look at 2017, it's just 2016 continued. They might as well, last year in 2016,
have said we're doing a two-year budget and here's phase one and phase two will
happen next year. We don't know what phase three is going to be when they come
to 2018 because they haven't given us any plans. Their whole focus is responding
to the deficit, is responding to our economic situation in the province by
making it worse.
This is
the thing. I invite my colleagues to study what I'm talking about because it's a
fact. It has been proven because of what happened over the years with the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These things have been studied to
death and the proof is there that because of that kind of direction poverty
increases. It's been proven.
The
economists have studied it, the economists have said without any doubt that when
you bring in austerity measures the economy suffers, the economic indicators
that we have in our province right now occur. Household income going down 3.2
per cent, retail sales going down 3 per cent, housing starts down 3.4 per cent,
GDP down 3.8 per cent, capital investment down 9.1 per cent: that's not growth
and there's nothing in the budget that's going to turn that around. That's the
part that's very scary.
It would
be hard for the government to start putting its mind into how can we turn this
around. So, no, they're not taking the hard way out, they are taking the easy
way out. They took the easy way out when they decided to, as I said, find money
but find it off the backs of the people. You look at the cuts and if you look at
one of the fines or another fine here or another fine there, by themselves they
may not look large, but death by a thousand cuts is what we're dealing with.
No one
fee is going to bankrupt somebody, but the many fees have a cumulative effect.
This is what we're hearing from people. This is why our economic indicators are
going downward and the government has said that. They said last year with the
2016 budget that while unemployment, yes, we know is going to go up, the
situation will be worsened because of the budget. How in the name of heavens the
government could bring in a budget saying this is going to add to our
unemployment I will never know. To say that's taking the hard way out, no, it
isn't.
Let's
look at some of the fees: The retail sales tax on insurance premiums and the
insurance companies' tax which just got passed on to consumers. Insurance is
essential. We are critical of people. If a house burns and people don't have
insurance, you say: Gosh, how come they don't have insurance? You have an
accident with somebody and the other person, it turns out they don't have
insurance on their car I wonder why they don't have their insurance.
Well,
you know, in most cases and I don't have statistics on this, but it's a
general knowledge that I have and I think others would have the experience
when people don't have insurance on their houses or they don't have insurance as
a tenant on the things that they own or they don't have insurance on their cars,
it's not because they're stupid, it's not because they don't understand that
they may need insurance someday, it's because they don't have the money to pay
for insurance. So what does this government do? It puts tax on the insurance
premiums tax, so that people who might be on the edge of affording their
insurance would probably have to stop getting it.
Yet, for
example, if somebody is driving a car, has an accident, doesn't have insurance,
then they are criminally wrong. I mean, it's wrong; you have to have insurance
on your cars. For the government to say that these fines are all right, that all
of these new taxes are all right, they have to know they're wrong.
Let's
look at the Deficit Reduction Levy. That was so unpopular. That's what brought
people to this building last year. That's what brought people demonstrating.
That was the big one. The government adjusted it, they didn't get rid of it and
it's still in place. People know it's still in place because every year hundreds
of dollars are coming out of the pockets of middle-income families because of
the levy. What's government's answer to that?
What
we're hearing from people is that they are finding that the levy, in fact, takes
all or a good portion of any tax rebate they may be expecting. That's not
acceptable. And this is a government that says it cares about the middle class;
it cares about lower income people? No, it doesn't, because if it did, it would
not do that. What they're doing is going to cause greater hardship as we
continue down the road.
Let's
look at the fee increases for trades exams and certificates at a time when we
should be encouraging young tradespeople to stay in the province. Well, that's
enough to send them elsewhere. The fees are a real impediment to a young person
trying to find work, who needs to pay their bills and who needs to pay rent,
just to survive. Yet it is another roadblock on their way to meaningful
employment and paying taxes into the Treasury. That's the other thing. What
government doesn't seem to be recognizing is that part of the reason why the
economy worsens with this kind
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate that. Then I don't have to shout.
The fact
that they are taking money from people and people have less money to spend
retail sales are down, for example, because people don't have the money. What
happens is the economy is becoming weakened.
The role
of consumers is extremely important to our economy. So it's not just what's
happening to the individual or the individuals or the families that's the issue,
it's because they do not have cash to go out as often maybe to have a meal, to
go to movies, to spend their money. Our economy gets worse.
This is
all logical. It's economically logical what I'm saying. This is factual as a
matter of fact. I don't think we've reached the depths of what's happening in
the United States and we're going to deny facts; everything that I'm saying is
economically factual. Economists have shown it, economic policy shows it and for
some reason this government is refusing to listen to those facts.
I know
there are people and they're obviously listening to them who would say I'm
wrong. I would say to them: What is your goal? I'm saying that to the
government: What is your goal? Is your goal to satisfy the creditors? Is your
goal to satisfy the corporate sector? Is your goal to take care of the market
economy or is your goal as government to take care of the people of this
province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. MICHAEL:
I say that's what our goal is
and that's what their goal should be. Every single one of us who are elected in
this House, that's what our goal should be. I would like to think that we all
have that goal.
What I
say to my colleagues on the other side of the House is you better investigate
the policies that you're pursuing because if you really do care about your
constituents, if you really do care about what's happening to the people of this
province, then you will have to say inside of your caucus: Our policies are not
taking care of the people of the province.
For that
reason, we will not see economic growth. For that reason, we will see more money
having to go into health care because poverty will increase. For that reason,
things are just going to continue to get worse in this province, not better.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
always happy to stand here on behalf of the people of Cartwright L'Anse au
Clair that I represent this afternoon in the House, on a Wednesday afternoon
being Private Members' Day.
We are
debating a private Member's resolution that was put forward by the Opposition.
It is condemning the Government for maintaining all but one of the 300 tax and
fee increases they imposed on people in last year's budget while failing to be
forthright and accountable in disclosing information, and while failing to
nurture the conditions for economic growth across Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I am dressed in black and white. As Deputy Speaker in the House, when I
take that Chair, I try my best to be impartial and do my job to the best of my
ability.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
But as the public would know,
Mr. Speaker, I also am a Member on the government side and attend caucus
meetings and things like that, so I'm certainly going to be speaking through
that lens.
I could
hardly believe when I read what the private Member's resolution was going to be
today. I could hardly believe that they don't get it. Mr. Speaker, we stood
here, I'm not sure what day in April the budget came down, and the Finance
Minister talked about the magnitude of the fiscal challenge the magnitude of
the fiscal mess that we inherited is not easily understood. I remember her
saying those words: the magnitude.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi just asked what's our view
for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what's our goal. Often, when I
sit here, when I listen to debate, I compare I use the analogy of a ship. The
Member asked, what's our goal?
Well,
our goal for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and I would think that
it would be becoming quite clear to the people is to get this ship back on
course. We are only 527,000 people in this province and we have been paying $900
million in interest, more than the entire Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development.
Mr.
Speaker, I spend a lot of time on the road. I spend a lot of time alone and you
think about those things, you ponder them. I think just imagine what we could do
with $900 million in interest. Instead, where we found ourselves a year ago was
we got elected and got onboard a ship that was going down. Yes, everybody
started bailing.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll admit that there were some decisions that were made that
personally I might not have thought were the best decisions. I think sometimes
you can hit the panic button. We were on a collision course for bankruptcy in
this province.
Mr.
Speaker, these people that they talk about that we're taxing, these people that
are paying the fees, they're my parents, they're your parents, they're our great
aunts and uncles, they're my daughter. I am a wife, I am a mother, I am a
daughter and, Mr. Speaker, I think we all put our names forward because we want
to make a difference in our little corner of the world.
I would
like to know who among my colleagues sat around a caucus table and said: Let's
tax all these people, I can't wait, let's tax them. Okay, come on, there's got
to be one more, there's got to be one more. This is so much fun. Let's really
create some hardship.
Mr.
Speaker, sometimes the public says we're tired of the blame game, back and forth
in the House of Assembly. Sometimes the people say talk about governing. I'm
very confident that we are on the right track. We have report cards in place
like The Way Forward. We've just had
an update on that report card and we are certainly working together on our path
to realize our potential and returning this province to surplus because as the
Minister of Finance so eloquently stated earlier today: Because we care about
this place that we call home. Our roots run deep and we want to stay here.
Mr.
Speaker, I understand about making difficult decisions. I grew up in a very
large family in coastal Labrador; my grandfather, an extremely successful
businessman with a grade three education, I might add. I come from a long line
of hard workers but I grew up in a home where it was drilled in us you do not
spend beyond your means. Yes, it would be nice to have this and, yes, it would
be nice to have that, but you have to make choices. Oftentimes, I guess the old
way was you didn't spend anything, you didn't even take out a loan; you saved
until you could afford it. So I understand the tough choices.
I just
want to make a comment to some of the things that I've heard over the last
couple of days here. Somebody said there's a reason why we have two ears and one
mouth and that's because we should listen twice as much as we speak. As I was
listening yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to some of the comments, the Conception Bay
East Bell Island Member said, generally, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians save
for a rainy day. The Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island talked about,
generally, people in Newfoundland and Labrador save for a rainy day.
That's
true. Newfoundland has known hard times. I often heard about the '30s from my
grandparents. They were used to keeping everything, hoarders sometimes we call
them. They were used to having to make due with little and they saved for a
rainy day.
As I
listened to the Member, Mr. Speaker, I thought, well, why didn't they $25
billion in oil money, $25 billion in oil over 12 years, why didn't they save for
a rainy day? Maybe Aunt Nellie and Uncle Joe and all of these people that they
talk about they have the concern for now would not have to be enduring the
hardship that they are enduring right now. It is very unfortunate.
It is
very unfortunate that we have people that are having a difficult time but, Mr.
Speaker, despite the difficult circumstance we found ourselves in, I'm immensely
proud that we were able to find things like the low-income supplement for
low-income people and seniors; $122 million that's helping that's 155,000
households.
Mr.
Speaker, I just spent 17 days in my district. I wish I had 17 more because it's
big and spread out and I didn't get around everywhere I wanted. When I visited
homes in Cartwright, when I visited homes like in Black Tickle, which is often
in the media, difficult times, they thanked me. People understand when you talk
to them people understand.
We have
the Opposition that gets up repeatedly and talks about all of the fees and it's
a terrible thing. Do you know what people said to me? We might not like
everything you've done but what's our alternative? Go back to what we had? Or
they know there are people in the House that will never be in Opposition or in
government and they say: It must be some easy to have that kind of job because
you can get up every day and you can complain about everything you can identify.
Mr.
Speaker, I respect democracy in this House. I respect the lively, spirited
debate. I respect that no matter who's in government, the Opposition and the
Third Party have a role to play in identifying the things that are in the
legislation and proposing amendments that could make it better at the end of the
day so that the things that become law in Newfoundland and Labrador are the best
laws possible for the people of this province.
For a
Member to stand and say generally they save for a rainy day, I had to wonder why
didn't they think of that the 12 years they were there. Now, despite all of the
money being gone and now we're paying $900 million a year in interest on the
credit card, now they're able to stand up and say how could you do that to the
people? Mr. Speaker, you've often heard the saying you cannot get blood from a
turnip. These were difficult choices that had to be made.
The
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune said we were in shock from last year's
budget. That's what she said yesterday: We were in shock from last year's
budget. Mr. Speaker, I was in shock a lot of months too with the absolutely bad
fiscal situation this province was in. Not very nice when you I represent a
district where we've been in Opposition for a long time, Opposition for 18
years. All of a sudden you have a Member in government.
There
were tough choices that had to be made, Mr. Speaker. It was a tough slog, but
people understand. When we go out and about and we move about in our districts,
we attend events and we talk to people, they see that this ship is turning
around.
Mr.
Speaker, I noticed one by one when they talk about this year's budget, they
really can't find anything to talk about. They're probably just amazed with the
progress that we have made one year in. The only thing they can say is it's a
bit like last year; it's a bit like last year. Mr. Speaker, the people that I
have talked to all over the province, they're very happy to see that we have
made an effort on the gas tax and we have assured them that in the fall fiscal
update that will be reviewed again.
I am so
pleased, Mr. Speaker, that all of the departments are coming out with this
report card. You can follow where we're going. Roads are a big issue for me. The
Trans-Labrador Highway, we didn't see the progress that we should have seen over
the last 12 years and the $25 billion in oil, but we have the Department of
Transportation and Works that have put it all out there for everyone to see.
Here's the five-year provincial roads plan. Here are the business cases that are
gone to Ottawa to be matched.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands talked about tourism and the
importance of signage and things like that when you're driving down through the
district. Well, I live in an area where signage isn't the biggest problem right
now; we are completely crippled with broadband. I've been able to work with the
Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation and partners like
NunatuKavut and Nunacor and my federal colleagues, the wonderful bunch in ACOA,
and we now have a proposal and Bell Aliant, the proponent, gone to Ottawa.
I am
very confident that we are going to get the funds in partnership from the
province and the feds to help the businesses prepare for tourism so that they
can get online on their computer and they can check those bookings so that
students can have a better speed for their Centre for Distance Learning, so that
our health services people can go in and sit down in front of a screen. Mr.
Speaker, you get that kind of progress when you plan, when you sit down and you
analyze and you say what are the priorities and things roll out, Mr. Speaker,
based on need.
Over the
past two or three years we had seven by-elections. I went through districts
where they were taking up good road and putting down excellent road. That's
where politics came into the pavement, Mr. Speaker. I went through areas where
people were being handed out things that we could only dream of in the area that
I represent. Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to be a part of a government where we
have a Way Forward, we have a document
that we're following and the politics is took out and things are being done
according to need.
So I'm
not surprised to read a PMR that says oh, government put $300 in taxes. Mr.
Speaker, choices had to be made because we were in the situation that we were
in. These are the same people that stand up and say oh, come clean with the
people, Mr. Premier; come clean with the people on your appointments. Some of
these people that are sitting there right now did 40 appointments in one day
40 appointments. I was reading it last night in some of my literature, 40
appointments in one day, so that stuff gets a bit old. This back and forth gets
a bit old in this House.
We have
an honour and a privilege to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We
have a privilege to represent our various districts, Mr. Speaker. I will
continue to do that to the best of my ability, to get to the departments and to
advocate for the people who I represent, for better roads, for better broadband.
I'm just so pleased that I can go to the people and say: Here is our report
card. Here's what we've done in the first year. Here is our five-year plan and
the ship is going to turn around and things are going to continue to get better.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't know if there was anyone more outspoken on Muskrat Falls than
me. I have to mention it before I sit down. It's a stone's throw from my
backyard. Many times I talked about the Joint Review Panel and the PUB not being
given the luxury to see if it was the least-cost benefit.
These
guys are standing day after day, Mr. Speaker, talking about the hikes. That's
what happens, when you have the fifth-largest megaproject in the world being
developed and there was no work done to see if it was the least-cost option. Not
only that, Mr. Speaker, this megaproject started and there was no independent
oversight. We called for that repeatedly.
Mr.
Speaker, if that project could have been stopped when we formed government, I
have every confidence that it would have been, but when you have $6.6 billion
spent or committed, when you have six major pieces being built, customized for
the project in other parts of the world, when you have a billion-dollar line
being built to Emera in exchange for power and you still have to provide that
and you have over a billion-dollar sub-sea cable across the Strait of Bell Isle
and you have a federal loan guarantee, it's not that easy to just walk out of
that contract.
Mr.
Speaker, I give our government credit. There were a number of measures that were
taken to regain control of that project to rein in the cost and expenditure so
that no more unnecessary cost would taxpayers would not have to saddle the
burden of that.
The
indigenous people, I have never, never seen a better relationship with the
Indigenous people when you can go into a 12-hour meeting and come out with an
agreement by all parties. Later this spring, for the first time in the
province's history, the Premier will lead a roundtable with the indigenous
leaders; the independent expert advisory panel that's going to look at Muskrat
Falls to ensure that the health and safety of our people trumps everything.
These are the measures that we have been able to take despite navigating through
very tough fiscal times.
We're on
the right course.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
MS. DEMPSTER:
We'll stay the course and
better days ahead.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I've
listened to much of the debate this afternoon and I'd like to begin by
addressing a couple of comments that were made by Members who participated. I'm
glad Members are taking an active interest in the private Member's motion that
is being presented today. I do think it's an important one and a timely one.
I was
glad that the Minister of Finance did address the motion today. I listened to
her remarks. I was surprised to hear her commentary on the spending of past
governments. We definitely have a government spending problem in Newfoundland
and Labrador. It's existed for decades.
All I
can say is that there were steps taken in the final years of our mandate, for
the time that I was at the table, to reduce government spending. That was, in
fact, having an impact; but, no doubt, I've said many times, government spending
is a challenge, we have to live within our means and we have to govern better.
We have to govern smarter and we have to make different decisions about how
taxpayers' dollars are spent.
But it
is ironic to hear the Minister of Finance chastising past administrations when
we just saw a government bring in a budget that increased spending. The spending
increase in this year's budget is $300 million over our last budget in 2015. So
we have a government that is saying, yeah, it's tough times and we have to make
touch decision even though they haven't made any.
We have
a government that repeatedly says, yeah, we have to rein things in and make
tough decisions, and the people of the province have to pay a price, yet
government spending has increased on their watch. So the budget is
MS. C. BENNETT:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KENT:
She heckling, Mr. Speaker.
She may not like the truth, but she's going to hear it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I'd remind the
Member opposite that we've cut spending by over almost a half a billion dollars
from their forecast.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There's no point of order.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure the
people of the province believe many of the statements that are made by the
Minister of Finance or the gentleman who sits next to her who leads the
government these days, for now. I understand the convention had been deferred,
so we'll see what happens.
Spending
is $300 million higher this year than it was in 2015. So that shows that nothing
has been solved. In fact, the problem is being made worse on their watch.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I can't hear. Oh
well, I guess I'll carry on anyway.
Very
disturbing comments by the Minister of Finance and I would encourage people to
check the facts for themselves. We also have to point out that this government
has done nothing to address the government spending challenge. In fact, the
problem has been made worse because of the decisions they've made or decisions
that they haven't made. The problem is worsening and nothing has been done to
address it.
The
Member for Humber Bay of Islands had some animated commentary earlier and I
had to rise to address a couple of remarks that he made. He referenced a VOCM
article with a headline that weren't my words; they were a reporter's words. In
the article I was on record as saying, yeah, government spending is a problem.
Multiple governments, including one that I was part of, contributed to that
problem that has been a problem in Newfoundland and Labrador for decades.
We all
have to take our share of responsibility for that; however, what I went on to
say is that we had an aggressive attrition plan that was making a difference, we
had introduced budgets that had in fact reduced government spending and those
things had made a difference. We had a plan to get us to a much better place
financially as a province and in the meantime, over numerous years, we made
decisions that led to considerable economic growth that created the right
climate for jobs to be created, that created the right climate for the economy
to grow.
We had a
plan and it was working so, yeah, I'll stand by my comments that we have to all
accept our collective responsibility but now, more than ever, we need to address
the government spending problem. We had a plan that was making a difference and
was reducing government spending. It was abandoned by the current Minister of
Finance, the current Premier and their administration and now government
spending is on the rise; $300 million over the 2015 budget, Mr. Speaker.
In the
time I have left I'd like to talk about the economy and the impact that the
decisions that have been made by the Liberal administration have had on the
economy. We're seeing a situation now across Canada where other provinces seem
to be turning the corner when it comes to the economy and we've got an economy
in free fall. We were promised an economic plan that doesn't exist. Every
government has an obligation to foster a climate for economic growth. Now we
have a government that's forecasting further decline.
Here's
what Economy 2017 said about the year
behind us on the Liberal's watch: Real GDP declined by 0.7 per cent. Capital
investment is estimated to have declined by 6.4 per cent. Household income was
down by 2 per cent in real terms. Consumer spending growth was down by 1.6 per
cent in real terms. The number of new vehicles sold was 33,687, a year-over-year
decline of 3.8 per cent. Consumer prices rose by 2.7 per cent, reflecting
increases in consumer taxes as well as general underlying inflation.
Employment fell by 1.5 per cent. The unemployment rate increased 0.6 percentage
points compared to the previous year. The value of provincial manufacturing
shipments decreased by 15.3 per cent. Overall construction industry employment
was down 700 people, 700 jobs relative to 2015.
Housing
starts decreased 17.6 per cent compared to 2015. The number of residential
properties sold in the province through the Canadian Real Estate Association's
Multiple Listing Service, MLS, fell by 1.4 per cent. Provincial farm receipts
during the first three quarters of 2016 were down 3.5 per cent from the same
period in 2015. It was not a good year on their watch.
What
about the year to come? Well, we've heard about the budget forecast; we've been
debating the budget in this House. Let me read some more from
The Economy 2017 forecast that talks
about the Liberal plan and projections for the year to come.
2017
Expectations: Real GDP is forecast to decrease by 3.8 per cent. Capital
investment is expected to decline by 7.8 per cent. Real exports are expected to
decline by 2.4 per cent. Employment is expected to be down 1.9 per cent from
2016. The unemployment rate is expected to increase by 0.5 percentage points to
average 13.9 per cent, what I believe is in fact the highest in the country.
Household income is expected to decline by 0.3 per cent due to lower employment.
Retail sales are expected to decline by 0.2 per cent. Consumer prices are
expected to increase by 2.9 per cent. The province's population is projected to
decline by 0.5 per cent. Housing starts are forecast to decrease by 3.4 per
cent. It's an economic crisis, Mr. Speaker, and it's happening on the watch of
that Finance Minister and the government opposite.
These
gloomy forecasts are backed up by others. Here's part of a release from the
Conference Board of Canada in December of 2016: No End in Sight for Weak Economy
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Newfoundland and Labrador's economy is
forecast to contract in 2017 for the fourth consecutive year by 1.4 per cent,
according to The Conference Board of Canada's
Provincial Outlook: Autumn 2016.
Once a
growth leader in Canada
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once a
growth leader in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador is facing a difficult road
ahead. Improving commodity prices will not be enough to offset weakness in the
domestic economy. That's from the associate director of Provincial Forecast
with the Conference Board of Canada.
There
are some highlights in that report as well: Newfoundland and Labrador's economy
is forecast to contract by 0.4 per cent in 2016 and decline again by 1.4 per
cent in 2017.
The
unemployment rate in the province will reach an average of 17 per cent by 2019.
With
the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, all provinces will see their economy
expand next year.
Newfoundland and Labrador's economy faces some significant challenges. There's
no doubt about that, but this current government has no plan to address those
challenges.
There's
another more recent news release from the Conference Board of Canada that came
out last month: Non-residential business investment will fall by nearly 57 per
cent in 2017
due both to weakness in manufacturing and mining sector investment and to
the hand-off from an unusually high level of non-residential investment in 2016
with the import of the Hebron platform equipment.
Labour
markets will face ongoing weaknessthe unemployment rate will rise above 17 per
cent in 2018, and real wage and salary growth will decline, resulting in a
disempowered Newfoundland and Labrador consumer.
Fiscal
austerity measures will limit government spending over the next five years
.
The
disempowered Newfoundland and Labrador consumer, that's the challenge, Mr.
Speaker. This government has professed doom and gloom. They've eroded consumer
confidence. Spending has grounded to a halt. They've caused young families in
this province to question their future here and some have already backed up and
moved away and others are looking at doing so. Young people who had plans to
come home, have now put those plans on hold indefinitely because of the climate
that's been created by this government.
So our
economy is now going to worsen because of the budget decisions that have been
made and under the economic leadership of the Members opposite. So that is
troubling news.
The Way Forward
is a document that's heavy on platitude. It's light on details. It's not a
roadmap to growth. It's not a strategy. It makes fun of some of the strategies
we had in place that made a huge difference in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's
disappointing that there is no vision, no plan, no hope for the future,
according to this current government.
There
are lots of reasons to be hopeful, Mr. Speaker. We have huge assets in this
province. What we need is leadership. What we need is an economic plan. What we
need is responsible budgeting and decision making. People deserve better than
what we're hearing and seeing from the government opposite.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
On
Private Members' Day, I get an opportunity to close debate. I want to thank all
the Members for participating in debate today, even though it's been a testy day
here in the House of Assembly, a testy afternoon. I thank the Speakers this
afternoon for trying to keep order and decorum in the House. We know that it's a
very sensitive issue when we talk about budget and fees and taxes and how the
people of the province feel about the budget. That's really what this is about.
The
Minister of Finance spoke this afternoon about reducing expenditures and how
government had to reduce expenditures. Mr. Speaker, from '15-'16 to '16-'17, my
colleague for Mount Pearl North and I think he may have confused his years
when he spoke a little bit. From '15-'16 to '16-'17, the current government
added $300 million in program expenditures and they criticized us constantly for
not reducing expenditures. In '17-'18, the total reduction was $81 million. Of
an $8 billion budget, $81 million was the total reduction.
When
we've been working to try and find out the facts of the budget, we find that the
pension actuarial study and the movement of the teachers' plan was about $380
million of the savings that they claimed. Government said we had savings. It
wasn't savings; it was a reduction in expenditure because of the work that we
did with the teachers' plan, the Public Service Pension Plan. We moved them out
of government to a joint trusteeship where both the employees and government
were jointly responsible.
To move
those pension plans out, some of those liabilities and the actuarial updates
and actuarial updates mean that the people, the mathematicians sit in a room and
they work out the values and what's owing on pensions and so on. Because of
those recent updates and studies, it was moved out of government. It wasn't a
reduction that government did; it was just an expenditure that came out of their
responsibility, out of their books, more or less, of $380 million. Government
has really done nothing to reduce expenditures.
They've
done things to reduce revenue. We remember last year in the budget in 2016 they
said we're going to have a revenue-generating budget in the spring, which was
code for taxes and fees that this motion is about today. Three hundred increased
taxes, 50 brand new fees in the spring of 2016 when they said don't be upset
with us; don't be mad because in the fall we're going to bring forward an
expenditure-reduction budget. The minister was on the record several times.
The
Premier said: No, you misunderstood that. It was going to be a fiscal update; it
wasn't going to be a revenue reduction. The Minister of Finance is clearly on
the record as saying in the fall of 2016 there would be an expenditure
reduction, and it never happened. It wasn't to be. It never occurred. There was
no expenditure reduction or budget fall or sorry, Mr. Speaker, fall reduction.
I'm
looking at the time, I see the clock is down but I think that's an error in the
clock, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. They promised in the fall there would be an
expenditure reduction budget and it wasn't to be. It never happened. So the
government really hasn't done anything. They've lost their political will to do
revenue reductions. Maybe they never had it in the first place and maybe they
weren't intending to do it in the first place.
We know
that government this year went through a zero-based budgeting process. We've
learned through the work we've done exactly what they are referring to with a
zero-based budget. What we found out was they built the budgets from the ground
up. Government departments quite often have extra expenditures and they have
leftover funding and so on. They move that around to meet their needs. What
they've done this year is they've taken the budget and they built it from the
ground up. So they've eliminated all those extra funds to move around. The
Minister of Finance and the officials in Finance were quite clear and said there
are no extra funds.
When we
asked the Minister of Fisheries and Lands how he's going to move the office to
Corner Brook, he's going to move the money around was what he said. They're
going to move the money; we're going to find the money. I believe they're
counting on people not going to Corner Brook. Some of the people who are
affected by this that I've spoken to and spoken to some of their family members
are telling me that more than they think are intending to go to Corner Brook. A
lot of people believe it was strictly a political decision, not one in the best
interests of the fiscal circumstances of the province. It was strictly done for
political reasons only.
I've
also heard that they said three months. Now that's already pushed out, I think,
to July, which would be four or five months from when they first said three
months. They're going to have everything scanned and digitized and they're going
to take it all and move to Corner Brook.
I heard
contractors and people who have been assessing it saying it can't be done in
three years. That's what I've heard. People have come in and they fold up the
books in their bags, they say this can't be done in three months; this can't be
done in three years. We'll see though. We'll see when the office is packed up
and everything is digitized and moved to Corner Brook in three months. We'll
see, Mr. Speaker.
That's
the problem that people are having with the government today. They promised no
new fees; 300 fees, that's what it's about. The only fee they've taken any
action to reduce was the gas tax, and they haven't done that entirely. They've
only done it partially.
Mr.
Speaker, we try to listen very carefully over here because we hear coded
messages sometimes. We're trying to read between the lines of what ministers and
government say and so on. We heard a comment from the minister opposite about
carbon tax. There was a comment along the way, they said: Maybe the gas tax will
become the carbon tax. There was a comment to that effect, maybe there was a
little bit of a discussion about it.
Are they
reducing the gas tax with a plan sometime in the near future to add carbon tax
on to that and the gas tax actually goes back up again but this time it's a
carbon tax? Because carbon tax is a tax that people will pay in some way, shape
or form. Either industry pays it and they pay the tax and the cost on to the
consumers or their customers, or people pay it such as at gas pumps or when they
make purchases of items that create carbon to produce, or creates carbon by
using it like fuels and gas and fossil fuels and so on. We don't know that, but
we expect we're going to see that at some point in time.
There
was a discussion this afternoon about equalization, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going
to reference it again. In 2012, there was a First Ministers' meeting. It was
with late Minister Flaherty who had a First Ministers' meeting with Finance
ministers. Minister Marshall was the minister of the day, the Finance Minister
then. The Finance Minister went to the First Ministers' meeting and the federal
minister asked for consultation and input from the federal ministers on
equalization and they were provided that.
Newfoundland and Labrador participated in that. Contrary to what Members
opposite want Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to believe, the government of the
day, the Minister of Finance, Tom Marshall a man highly respected throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador, still respected today. I have a tremendous amount of
respect for him. He went a fine gentleman, he absolutely is to the First
Ministers' conference representing Newfoundland and Labrador and provided input
at that meeting about equalization.
In 2014,
Minister Flaherty, late Minister Flaherty, announced the new equalization
formula, a new equalization plan, which was essentially unchanged from what it
was prior to. So to say that Newfoundland and Labrador and the PC Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador didn't make efforts to change it, not so, Mr. Speaker,
just not so. It's easy political gamesmanship, but I'll tell you what hasn't
happened
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Like health transfers.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, like health not a lot
different than health transfers.
I'll
tell you what has happened, is the new Liberal provincial government who brags
and boasts, in the very early days all got on a plane, they went up and sat in
the prime minister's office, all to celebrate their wins. They talked about what
a great relationship we're going to have with the federal government. I remember
the Premier saying: We love Justin Trudeau. Well good. They were sitting up in
the prime minister's office. I recognized it because I sat there myself. I sat
there myself with the former prime minister. I sat there fighting for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
No, I wasn't you know what,
I wasn't successful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
You know what, I'll say to
Members opposite. I wasn't successful in my efforts but at least I had I
almost said something then but at least then I had the willingness, I had the
courage. I had the willingness and courage to go sit in the prime minister's
office and say: Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve more. More than what
that government will do over there, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
They won't do it because
they're in love with the prime minister. That's why, because they say we love
the prime minister. Well, good for you, but get up there and make sure he loves
us back. He should love Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
If they did that, just like
Nova Scotia, and we received equalization Nova Scotia, $1.7 billion in
equalization. The same amount that Members opposite talk about the deficit
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
The same amount that Member's
opposite talk about as the deficit Newfoundland and Labrador was facing not
$2.8 billion like one Member over there tried to say; $1.8 billion, the same
amount. If Newfoundland and Labrador had that equalization funding, we'd be in a
very different place, having a very different conversation today, but they won't
fight for it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
They won't fight for it, Mr.
Speaker. They wouldn't fight for the fisheries fund.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I don't know how
much more the Member over there really has thin skin today because he hadn't
been able to stop heckling all afternoon. That's fine if he wants to heckle. I'm
okay with that, and I'll even stop talking and give him a chance to do so. I'm
okay with that, but if he wants to heckle and disturb the House, he can go right
ahead. I know he's been at it all afternoon.
He's
upset about it, Mr. Speaker, because they won't fight. This government and this
Premier won't fight for Newfoundland and Labrador. They won't fight for the
fishery and they won't fight for equalization. That's the problem, and the
problems would be different.
What
they did last year in the spring I'm going back to the spring budget, the fall
budget because there were three decision points the Minister of Finance said:
Revenue generation in the spring of 2016, expenditure reduction in the fall of
2016 and further expenditure reduction in the spring of 2017.
Fall '16
never happened, expenditure reduction. The spring '17, we never saw it either,
Mr. Speaker. They never did it, but do you know what they did do in 2016? They
told the public service, which is the biggest chunk of expenditure for
government, they told the public service and put them on notice: We're reducing
expenditures. People are going to lose their jobs. That's essentially what they
told them. Public servants are going to lose their jobs.
So do
you know what public servants started to do? They started to save their money.
Instead of going to a restaurant or buying that new car or getting their car
repaired or replacing the roof or putting new windows or buying a new kitchen
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Renovations.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Instead of doing renovations
in their home, they pocketed their money because they said we don't know.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not exaggerating when I say, amongst the seven of us here in the
Opposition, I would say we have heard from hundreds of public servants
hundreds, Mr. Speaker, I'm not exaggerating who were afraid of what was going
to come in the fall, and when the fall never came, that unknown moved to the
spring budget of 2017, millions of dollars of economic decline because the
umbrella of threat and fear of losing their jobs over the public service now for
a full year. They didn't do it. They didn't reduce the expenditure. They didn't
do it.
Even the
bond rating agencies that the Minister of Finance has provided the budget to
provided the budget to bond rating agencies before it was provided to the people
of the province. The minister disclosed that. Before the people of the province
were given the budget documents and the budget was announced, it was given to
the bond rating agencies under embargo, you can't share it and so on. I think
they were looking for their approval maybe. They gave it to the bond rating
agencies before they gave it to the people of the province.
Even the
bond rating agencies have said they've done nothing to reduce their expenditure.
Nothing has changed, I think was one of the phrases that one of the bond rating
agencies said nothing has changed. I'll tell you what else has not changed,
Mr. Speaker, all those fees and taxes they put on Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians a year ago.
They
knew this year they had to do something because they were afraid of a repeat of
the outcry of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who were so hurt and so badly
impacted by the budget. They had to do something so they dropped the gas tax,
but only some of it.
That's
why I stand here today and say of the 300 fee increases last year, today there
are 299½ still in place. It's certainly not something to celebrate. I hope they
fight to Ottawa.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Fear mongering.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's not fear mongering. I
hope you fight to Ottawa. I hope you go to Ottawa.
What did
I say is not right, 299 fees still in place? If anyone over there wants to say
they're not in place, tell me which ones are not in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's not fear mongering, it's
a fact.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Calling out fear mongering,
Mr. Speaker, as if that's not true.
Mr.
Speaker, the fact is and the truth is and if Members opposite can show me
where other taxes and fees have been reduced, they certainly haven't announced
them to the people of the province and I'm sure the people would love to hear
it. I'd like to hear it. I'd like to hear that noose being taken off people who
are being strangled economically and are having a hard time trying to make ends
meet, having a hard time to feed their families and a hard time to stay living
in Newfoundland and Labrador where they want to be right here at home because of
the burden being placed on them by the government.
Mr.
Speaker, we will ask the government, once again, to do their job, to think about
people first, to reduce the cost to live here and to improve the economy for all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That's why this motion is on the floor today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is the
House ready for the question?
All in
favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Call in
the Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
All
those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr. Paul Davis, Mr.
Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Ms. Michael, Ms.
Rogers, Mr. Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr.
Joyce, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr.
Kirby, Mr. Trimper, Mr. Warr, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Browne, Ms. Gambin- Walsh, Mr.
Edmunds, Mr. Letto, Ms. Haley, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr. Derek Bennett, Mr.
Holloway, Ms. Parsley, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dean,
Mr. King.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes nine; the nays 26.
MR. SPEAKER:
I declare the motion
defeated.
It being Private Members' Day, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 in the afternoon.