March 28, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 6
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First
from the Order Paper, I would move Motion 9. I would move, pursuant to Standing
Order 8(8), that this House adjourn at 5 p.m. today, Wednesday, March 28 until
Monday, April 16, 2018.
MR. SPEAKER:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 2.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources that Bill 2, An Act To Amend The Electrical
Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities Act be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public
Utilities Act. (Bill 2)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The
Public Utilities Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on
the Order Paper. (Bill 2)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would
call Motion 4.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Proceed.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would move, seconded by the
Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Status Of Women Advisory Council Act, Bill 4, and
I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Status Of Women Advisory Council Act, Bill 4, and that the
said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women to introduce a bill,
“An Act To Amend The Status Of Women Advisory Council Act.” (Bill 4)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Status Of Women Advisory Council Act. (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Motion 5.
I would
move, seconded by the Minister Responsible for Natural Resources, for leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, Bill
5, and I further move that the said bill be now read a
first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, Bill 5, and that the
said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act, 1997.” (Bill 5)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 5 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from
the Order Paper Motion 1, the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
privilege to rise today to respond to the budget presented yesterday. This is
the third budget of the current administration in their mandate after being
elected in the fall of 2015.
The
budget presented this year was presented by a new Minister of Finance, new in
terms of the executive and the government on the other side. The first two were
presented by the prior Finance Minister, and I'm looking forward today to
sharing some commentary on what we heard yesterday.
In any
government's mandate there's a period they lay out, depending on the fiscal
situation, what that is and what they find themselves in over a longer period,
even longer than the four-year mandate. I guess what this administration has
done and often references is a seven-year period that they look at and out to
2022-2023 in regard to where we're going with the current deficit, where we're
going with a surplus and when we get back to a balanced budget.
There
was a lot of discussion yesterday and in past years on getting there. Is it
realistic what government has laid out and what the Minister of Finance laid out
yesterday? I would suggest as I go through this morning and make some comments,
I'm not sure whether that plan is realistic. I think there's some
acknowledgement of that specifically, and I'll talk about it later.
Some of
the reviews that were done by the Auditor General, specifically in 2017 in
regard to that seven-year plan and getting to where we needed to get based on
what they have laid out of 2022-23, if based on economic conditions whether it's
reasonable to think we would get there and achieve what's been laid out.
We've
had in this province tremendous wealth and royalties from our oil and gas
reserves over the past decade. There has been dramatic reduction in those, in
the barrel of oil over the past couple of years, certainly seen by Alberta and
Saskatchewan as well, oil producing provinces in our country. That has had
significant effect in the economies of Alberta, Saskatchewan and here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
It was
interesting, in prior years we heard some of the Members of the Opposition, when
they were in Opposition, talk about we were addicted to oil, we were too
dependent on oil; yet, all the forecasts and some of the information they're
using now to project where they want to get in 2022 is literally all based on
oil projections, what the cost of oil will be, what our production rate will be.
It's tied directly to the overall deficit reduction.
The
minister talked yesterday about oil projections using 11 forecasters that
provide technical advice in regard to what they're seeing on the world stage in
where this is going, what the cost is going to be. It's pretty well the same 11
companies we had used as well.
What
they do is they try and give the best projections they possibly can in what's
happening geopolitically around the world, what's happening in regard to OPEC,
those producers now. There are some large producers that are outside of OPEC
that have significant influence now on world oil prices.
You look
at, as well, countries like Russia and the amount of oil they're producing. You
look at the United States and the new direction they've taken in regard to, not
only to become self-sufficient in oil production but also looking to export,
which is a new phenomenon for the United States because it was always about
being self-sufficient. If you need to look at how they've changed the outlook is
they want to be an exporter with shale oil and gas and the production of that;
especially, they've been doing it for 60 years in North and South Dakoda.
The
expansion of that into the US allows them to be a bigger international player in
the oil and gas scene where now they become – and the agenda is not only to be
self-sufficient in the US, but to be a player and exporter in the world and be a
player in that overall market for oil and gas. Which, again, brings some
uncertainty and looks at the stability in how that would function in the world,
and getting back to those 11 companies that try and project where oil is going
to go and what a barrel of oil is going to be.
There
are more factors today, I think, involved in that determination to try and
identify where that stability is and how it's going to function in years and
decades ahead. So it's complex. We recognize that in terms of identifying the
barrel of oil, but my point being is that this administration was critical in
the past of us and how we used oil in generating wealth for the province.
The
reality is we have some of the greatest reserves yet untapped in our oil and
gas, in regard to what's offshore here on the Island and certainly offshore in
Labrador. So all of that I think, and I think it's agreed, bodes well for our
future in regard to those resources and what's available as we go forward.
Oil is a
big part of our economy. It will continue to be. We all talk about diversifying
our economy and making sure we can draw wealth from various areas of our
economy.
As we go
through – and we'll talk this morning about other areas – certainly our fishery
has traditionally been a huge part of why we settled here originally over 500
years ago in harbours and coves in Newfoundland and Labrador and how that drove
our economic activity, and still do today. While we're having some challenges,
when we look at last year and the amount landed, there are concerns because
aquaculture has been reduced in regard to the amount landed.
When you
look at the value, that's because of the prices and those sorts of things, the
landed value has increased but the real concern is that the amount that has been
landed has continued to decrease. That's from various species whether it's
shrimp, crab, groundfish, capelin. We look at now what the issue is in regard to
capelin, capelin stocks and the role that plays in their ecosystem. There's even
some discussion about whether we should look at banning a capelin fishery in
regard to the role that plays in the ecosystem of our fishing industry.
If you
go back and look at years ago in Iceland, what happened there when they saw the
downturn in their groundfish and their fishing industry, they basically
determined they were going to close down the capelin fishery. Basically from the
perspective, as I said, that was the major feed of the ecosystem and, based on
that, they did that and rebuilt their fishery.
We know
where the federal fishery policy comes from; it comes from Ottawa. We can debate
that in terms of how that benefited us since 1949 in terms of having input into
our fishery. I'll talk about that too as I go through and the financial side of
that and what it means for Newfoundland and Labrador.
There
has been discussion as well in joint management of that fishery in regard to
what we can do in terms of having a say. Because as I said, it's a centralized
fisheries policy now, it comes out of Ottawa, very little input in regard to the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador having input and making sure the best
interest of Newfoundland and Labrador – in some cases, the best interest of
Atlantic Canada is looked at. A lot of the quotas in Eastern Canada are part of
an Atlantic Canada quota and the fish management plan is reflective of that, but
one of the things that are certainly discussed in the past is a similar example:
the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
That
could be established and was established through the Atlantic Accord, which came
about in 1985, to allow shared jurisdiction, shared control, shared regulatory
framework to drive that industry for the best interest of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in conjunction with the federal government and with Canada. But we
have right here, established in the province, the C-NLOPB, which is shared
partnership, shared jurisdiction and regulatory control. We have equal
representation on the board, equal representation from the administration point
of that body. Why couldn't we replicate something like that for the fishery of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
I know
in mandate letters, in the minister across the way, that has been part of it in
terms of shared jurisdiction. I guess if you look at just what transpired very
recently in the past three to four weeks in regard to a decision on surf clams
and how that decision came about, what transpired and then, at the end of the
day, it was just an arbitrary decision made by a federal minister in Ottawa that
we're reducing a quota by 25 per cent, which is very important to a place like
Grand Bank – certainly, Clearwater, a company out of Nova Scotia, and others.
Because some time ago, I think there were four or five licences that were part
of that industry and, through a process, they came out and they were combined by
others.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I'm
having difficulty hearing the speaker.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So those
quotas did exist and they consolidated. I think there are two now with
Clearwater. They continue to drive the industry.
That's
great, but up to 2015-2016, I believe, and prior to that, there was only about
50 per cent of the surf clam quota that was taken in any given year. In 2016,
that was maximized. But the point being there are opportunities for others
within that fishery. When you look at the various species that are under that
quota, it's not only surf clams, there are a a whole other range of species that
are there that could be used and should be used to expand the fishery right here
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That
gets to the point of the joint management or a formalized process where the
regulatory framework and the control of that are shared with Newfoundland and
Labrador, so we do have an actual say and how that fishery is done and laid out.
The federal government has decided that through our Aboriginal groups and some
of the things over our history, a reconciliation process, which is very
understandable, but have determined that this industry is a way to deal with
that. I guess that's a public policy decision, but over and above that the
reality is there are a lot of companies in Newfoundland and Labrador and in
Atlantic Canada that would like to see access to that industry.
They
talked about a monopoly and reducing a monopoly. Well, there's no new operator
that's allowed to enter, based on the decision that's been made. So the point is
why not open up that industry, open it up to new operators –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Can I
ask the Members, if they wouldn't mind, to please take their conversations
outside? It is really difficult to hear the Opposition House Leader.
Thank
you.
Please
continue.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So from
a fisheries policy point of view and how important it is to our economy,
certainly to a budget that we heard yesterday and some of the things we've seen
in regard to landings being down this year and last, that's a concern.
The
answer to – we need to expand that range and access of other species. Just as an
example of what's happened in the last number of weeks, surf clams and those
types of species are an option that we don't seem to be pursuing, or it's not in
the direct benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the industry here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
That's
certainly an important industry for us, the oil and gas sector, the fishery. We
look at our traditional forestry industry and what's been – certainly on the
West Coast and Central Newfoundland, it's been a tremendous driver of the
economy. Not only something like the mill in Corner Brook, and I think it's 500
or 600 people now that are employed there, but it's the spinoff from that and
the many people who are involved with that industry, whether it's harvesters,
whether it's those small companies, whether it's the other sawmills. All of that
provides employment to Newfoundland and Labrador.
When you
look at that side of it, and some of the challenges in what's happened with the
production of newsprint over the past decades and the reduced newsprint
production, or newsprint use in the world, and especially in North America, has
significantly affected various other paper mills we had in the province. We know
what happened with those. Right now we have Corner Brook.
When you
look at some of the directions that have been taken in the US in regard to
tariffs and the renegotiating of NAFTA, and some of the challenges that's posing
for us from an economic point of view, it's extremely challenging. That's why we
need strong leadership in dealing with that.
Last
summer, we knew the administration in the United States was looking at some
tariffs based on the renegotiation of NAFTA, and two direct tariffs actually.
One was announced in early January, a countervail tariff. Then just recently, an
anti-dumping tariff. Collectively, I think the range for that tariff was
somewhere around 30 per cent.
So you
can imagine; you're sending a product into the United States and there's a 30
per cent over and above your operations today. I don't know how many companies
out there, big corporations even, that have a margin of 30 per cent that they
can soak up and all of a sudden still be competitive and still be productive in
putting things into a certain market.
We've
seen very little action on the other side in dealing with this. The Leader of
the Opposition has asked a number of questions over the past number of months
in, how do we deal with this and how do we make sure we're being heard in regard
to dealing with this? Again, it's very important in regard to our economy and
the budget and how we generate wealth.
Part of
the budget that was talked about yesterday is getting to a balanced budget in
2022-23. We have a major megaproject. Muskrat Falls is coming to an end in the
next while. Over 4,000 people are employed with that. A tremendous amount of
people are drawing a salary from that that is driving the economy. We look at
the businesses that are tied to that and all of that. That's coming to an end.
When you
look at those industries and some of the ones I talked about and outside of
that, what's government doing to create that environment? I say create that
environment because fundamentally governments don't create jobs. They create the
environment where investors want to invest, where there's an environment, a
taxation system where young families want to stay and raise their families and
contribute to their communities and pay taxes and build communities in those
regions. That's government's role, to create that environment.
High
taxation, disincentives to stay here, especially in difficult times or financial
challenges is problematic. We need to get to the point – I think when you look
at some of the indicators in the budget, the economic indicators are not going
in the right direction. When you look at things like population; population
growth is not going in the right direction.
An
immigration strategy, that's good, but you need people who are staying here or
living here today to stay, and you need people you are trying to attract to come
and live here, you need to demonstrate to them there's an environment here that
they would want to come and financially and socially and other reasons –
financially is one that the standard of living, the cost of living is equivalent
to other jurisdictions and we're competitive. That's something government really
needs to continue to look at. This budget, I don't think, reflects that. It
doesn't look at people's incentive to stay or people's incentive to come and why
they would want to be here, because that's important.
We know
where our demographics are going. We know we have an aging population. One of
the fastest aging populations in Canada based on province to province to
territory. Without that incentive and without that influx of new people, it's
certainly challenging to us and challenging for our economy as we move forward.
I
mentioned the forestry, that's certainly one that when we look at the tariffs
and the challenges we have, we need to continue to grow that and continue to be
strong to the federal government, to make sure the International Trade minister
and the folks up there are fully cognizant of the issues of concern.
I think
there was a MP from BC asked a question to the minister of trade in the current
Liberal government in Ottawa. I think when she responded, she didn't even
reference Corner Brook or reference the challenges faced here in Newfoundland
and Labrador related to that.
I know
there was an issue that came up in regard to the NAFTA negotiations and the
rules – or I think it was in regard to steel and the tariff that would go on
steel that goes into the US. I know the prime minister went to a couple of steel
plants in Ontario and was supportive of the workers and told them we're there
for you and we're going to work hard. When this challenge hit Corner Brook, we
had no visible display of support from the federal government or from the prime
minister in regard to that issue which is, in and of itself, concerning.
So as we
look for those industries to drive the economy, which we hadn't seen in the
budget yesterday a plan to do it, the issue of NAFTA and continuing to drive our
economy, how that may be a disincentive for many of the activities in our
economy as we move forward, when we look at the economic indicators, they're
again a huge concern as we move forward.
We look
at our agricultural industry and we've heard government talk about accessibility
to new Crown land, what that's going to do to drive agriculture, but yesterday
in the budget there was no reference to what the success has been, what the
return has been, how many new farming entities have been established, how many
new farmers. None of that was identified yesterday to give us an indication of
where the economic growth is coming from to reach targets that are laid out for
2022-2023.
Referring back to the NAFTA negotiations, there is some concern in regard to the
issue of rules of origin around the automobile sector. It was an issue that was
brought up in NAFTA negotiations and how there was huge concerns about parts
that were made in Canada, often have two or three trips back and forth across
the border to build that car, wherever it's built, whether it build in Canada or
built in the US. That, through past discussion with the federal government and
the US, has been taken off the table. The interest now or discussion now is:
Okay, if that was taken off, what are the repercussions of that? What was given
up?
One of
the things that have been talked about in the agriculture and other sectors is
related to supply management. Was Canada willing to or would entertain any move
in supply management in regard to offsetting what they're talking about in
regard to rules of origin? So would they look at that?
That's a
huge concern in the agricultural industry and where it's going. So that's
something, again, we need strong representation from the province here and
certainly from the federal government as we move forward with that particular ….
Those
industries that I've just referenced, the IT sector continues to need growth.
Tourism has had success in the past decade. I know we started a process of
putting well in excess of $10 million into our advertising and marketing in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of the companies that were involved with that
were internationally recognized for the commercials and the marketing program
they had, and numerous awards. That spurred on, I think, the start of something
exceptional for Newfoundland and Labrador.
We're
continuing to see growth in the tourism sector, which is indeed positive. I
certainly acknowledge on the other side that they've continued that significant
investment, which they should, and continue to promote this Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador as a place to come and spend. I know last year, if I
remember correctly, non-resident visitors were up, which is certainly good.
Because that means there's new dollars coming to the province. We're not
circulating the same dollars in the economy. We have new money coming in from
outside.
We look
at some of our airports. Torbay comes to mind, and Deer Lake, in regard to the
amount of people that are coming through. That all drives the industry and
drives particular activities here in the Province.
On the
tourism side – again, from my particular area and where I represent, from the
Goulds area to St. Shott's – it's huge and has been significant in regard to the
amount of investment and what happens in the tourism industry. We have a number
of operators, small businesses. Whether it's the service sector, whether it's
B&B. We have non-profit groups that provide tremendous environments for visitors
to come.
We have
the Colony of Avalon, to name a few. We have the UNESCO designation in Portugal
Cove South, Cape Race-Portugal Cove South Heritage Inc. All of those groups –
and that's only a couple. There are many throughout the area that provide
tremendous benefits for the industry, and that's right around the Irish Loop.
That's enormous, significant, in what transpires and how you drive it.
The
other day I did a Member's statement on the Edge of Avalon in Trepassey, the
Edge of Avalon Inn. Some of the things – just an example of an entrepreneur who
revitalized the hotel in Trepassey, Carol Ann and John Devereaux. That's where
entrepreneurs were – there was an opportunity there with some of the traffic
we're seeing from the UNESCO site in Portugal Cove South, the new designation in
2016.
Through
that, there were entrepreneurs who took the risk, were assisted by government
and – were assisted, but then they took the risk to drive those initiatives that
were important to those. So I think that's very clear, that where an opportunity
exists and you create that environment, entrepreneurs, with encouragement,
hopefully will take that risk and drive economic opportunity.
We've
had some challenges on the UNESCO piece in regard to investments on the other
side in that provincial designation as a World Heritage Site. I don't believe,
and I haven't seen it in the budget, but I certainly look forward to seeing
details, if there is any new money to assist with the UNESCO site in Portugal
Cove South. With those great volunteers up there that run a board which has been
in place, various names and so forth, but the volunteers have been – to get it
to the point of it got listed on the UNESCO list, a lot of work done.
We
supported that as a government in getting the dossier and all the documentation
and everything done to make sure it could get reviewed. It did get reviewed in
Turkey in 2016 through the normal process, United Nations, when they meet to
consider those applicants and those that are on the list. Luckily enough, it was
given that designation. It was an exciting time, and great appreciation to all
those who were involved with that.
With
that comes a management plan and that management plan for UNESCO designation is
to make sure the plan and the details of it are met because your designation is
tied to that. With that comes a need for an input of dollars because this
designation is a provincial designation in regard to World Heritage Sites. The
rest in the province are with the federal government or with Parks Canada, but
this is the first that's provincially designated a UNESCO site.
It's a
World Heritage Site, and obviously the world comes and the world recognizes
that. But to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been demonstrated – there has
been no new money invested by this current government in a provincial designated
UNESCO site. This year in the budget, I haven't seen it, but I'd hope there
would be. Last year I know there was a meeting with the then minister in regard
to that site. There was an ask for, I think, $75,000 to try to help in regard to
the administration of the site.
So
there's an interpretation site in Portugal Cove South that had been built
through cost sharing over the past number of years. That's operated by
volunteers. That serves not only Mistaken Point, but Cape Race and all the
visitors that go out to these two entities.
I think
last year the numbers continued to grow. There may be somewhere between 8,000
and 10,000 people visited that site and would have went to Mistaken Point or
seen the fossils and the replicas of them in the interpretation site would have
had that experience – not go on site but had it within the building and/or went
out to Cape Race and seen the Myrick communication station out there which would
have been –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, indeed, it is lovely.
It would
have been the first site for the Titanic
and that tragedy; the SOS would have been received at Cape Race and at the
Myrick communication site.
That's
all part of growing that cluster of activities in the area so you can bring
people in, you can see economic development but, in that case, we need
government support and it's been rare to find over the past little while in
regard to funding that which is a provincial, as I said, UNESCO heritage site.
Hopefully, in this budget, there's some help for those volunteers. At this point
now, it's even gone to the point where they're selling tickets and things like
that to operate the interpretation site and this is a World Heritage Site that's
here in Newfoundland and Labrador provincially. In terms of driving tourism and
the other side talks about economic development, it's a prime example of how an
opportunity can be built be on, but it needs support and I hope in the days
ahead we'll be hearing about where that support is coming from.
That's
just a particular example of tourism and what it means to the economy in
Newfoundland and Labrador and how it's another area that we continue to grow and
continue to make better the opportunities we have here in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
My point
in picking out some of those industries that I've talked about, whether it's the
oil and gas sector, whether it's the fishery, whether it's the forestry,
tourism, IT, the other industries, all of those – the mining sector, we've seen,
over the past decade, some improvements in the mining sector. The commodity
market is volatile as well in natural resources in the mining sector, but we've
seen some promising finds, the Baie Verte Peninsula; you look about gold and
some of the things that have happened out there in the building of that out
there has been very positive in terms of our province and an economic driver in
that particular region as well.
Unfortunately, when you look at Voisey's Bay and the underground mine, we've
been asking for two years now what's happening there. There was a commitment
made to go underground, which would be huge in terms of the construction of
that. I think it was about 400 jobs for construction and then a couple of
hundred after in terms of operations. But that again, when you look at the
economic indicators we have and where they're going, in the wrong direction, we
need this opportunity and we need these opportunities to evolve and to kick in
so we can start to have those contributors to our economy which are so
important. Again, we've heard nothing on that.
There is
an agreement in place, there are commitments made and they should be held
accountable. We should be able to deal with that. The government on the other
side doesn't seem to want to do to deal with it.
Cobalt,
as a commodity, has increased in regard to its value worldwide, and my
understanding is that it's used in batteries. When you look at some of the
transitions that's going on in regard to getting off fossil fuel and building
batteries for vehicles and those types of things, it's well needed in this
particular time.
The
derivative from iron ore, my understanding is cobalt and that provides a huge
opportunity in regard to the underground mine and what we can do. It's not only
iron ore, but it can certainly be an advantage to marketing and making it
profitable. Yet, we're hearing nothing in regard to why this is not moving
forward, which is a concern.
There's
an opportunity there and I certainly wish government would get on and push that
opportunity to make sure we can continue to drive the economy. As I said
yesterday in the budget, while there was a forecast made in how we're going to
drive new opportunity in the economy, where it's coming from, what industry, the
details on that were scarce, as they would say. There was a reporter who would
say: Details are scanty. Yes, details were very scanty in regard to how we're
going to do that. It's great to put out forecasts, we're going to hit targets,
but you have to do the backfilling of information of how we're going to hit
that, and certainly that was lacking in what we heard yesterday.
Mr.
Speaker, mining, as I said, is one of those sectors that I talked about and how
it continues to grow the economy and it's important to us. That gets to the
indicators that we need in our economy to drive wealth and drive taxation and
all those things that we get to make Newfoundland and Labrador a place you want
to live and you want to raise your family. We need to increase our population,
as well, from the immigration point that I talked about earlier when I started
related to that.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about – this is the third budget of this particular
government. I think it's important to look back and see what the original
direction was in the first year of the mandate, what were some of things
discussed and how the particular administration, in their mandate, was going to
deal with some of the issues that they were faced with. In starting out, I
talked about industry and what's important to Newfoundland and Labrador – and
there are others as well – and I tied that to the economic indicators that I
think, if anybody out there wanted to look, it's on page 13 of the
Budget 2018 – The Economy and it lists the various indicators in terms of
the economy, retail sales, housing starts, all of those indicators that allows
the economy to grow and returns dollars back to the economy.
If
industry doesn't grow and we're not supporting industry and we're not creating
that environment and that competitive environment dealing with other provinces,
that's a concern. That's what we think is lacking in this budget in regard to
that clear picture of where we're moving.
We went
back to the first budget in 2017 and the speech from the minister at that time –
a different minister than the one who gave the speech yesterday – there were
conversations about tough fiscal economic times; we could understand that. There
was talk about an evidence-based approach to projects, to programs, to services
and how they're supported.
Then it
went on; there was talk about bankruptcy and all those kinds of things but the
Premier said – and I agree, I don't think we're in a position where bankruptcy
is something when you look at the resources and everything else we have in this
province and we look at equity that we currently own, all of those things. I
think that's not where we need to be in regard to a province and looking
forward. We need to recognize there are challenges, but we need to talk about
and support all of those things that are available to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. Some of those industries I've talked about hold great potential. I
think it's important that we talk about that and, as I said, deal with the
challenges in a clear and concise path that we can lay out. Yet, let's stand up
as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as we always have done, to say we can make
our way through when there are huge opportunities that exist for us.
There
was also talk in the 2017 budget from the minister at the time, making hard
choices and asking taxpayers to dig deep into their pockets so we can close the
gap between our revenue and costs. I guess everybody would say they're still
digging deep into our pockets – everybody's pockets. We saw a little relief
yesterday in regard to some of the insurance costs, particularly related just to
automotive. All other insurance costs would stay. I think it's a 2 per cent
reduction of the 15 over the next number of years that would reduce it down to
10 per cent, if I remember correctly.
The
minister, at the time, talked about we were on a path to gain control of our
finances and strike the balance between better spending controls and valuable
investments in communities, people and the economy. Well, some would argue,
based on what we heard yesterday, and as I said earlier in regard to a path they
had laid out to 2022-23, we're not sure whether that's been realized. When you
look at some fundamental numbers in regard to program expenditures, overall debt
expenses, we were criticized for spending over and above in budgets. Yet, when
you go back and look at the program debt and total expenses for the three
budgets that we're talking about here, this government has continued to allow
those to grow.
So you
can't have it both ways. Either someone overspent and they shouldn't have, but
now you're going to bring in budgets that continues and don't make the necessary
changes in the expenditures to allow you to reach your goals. This is a pattern.
We've certainly seen it here and we've also seen it in the federal government in
Ottawa. In that first lead up, I guess, in that campaign and in 2015, the
current administration in Ottawa said they were going to run a $10 billion
deficit. At the end of the day, I think it came up to about $18 billion. Again,
this year, I think they're forecasting a deficit of $28 billion. So it seems
like we're copying what's happening in Ottawa. There's no indication of
reduction. At least here there's a plan, but I don't think they're going to
reach it, of 2022 of a balanced budget.
Ottawa
is saying they haven't even set a target to balance the books. Most economists
out there say with status quo, it might be 2045 and we might get there, but
that's highly unlikely because usually there's a recession or a slowdown in the
economy every so many years. So that's not factored in.
When we
look at the pattern here of expenditures and getting things in line, the current
format of the current administration in regard to getting there is not reflected
and certainly their plan cannot be achieved with numbers that we've seen in the
first three budgets.
So if we
look back again in 2017 in regard to how this was all set up and what we were
going to do, if you remember back then, as well, there was discussion about
future supplementary budgets. There was a budget given early in the first year
of the mandate. The first part of that, to deal with some of the fiscal
challenges, was we were going to have revenue generation. There were 300 fees
that were either increased or added that provided, if I can remember, maybe over
$900 million in new revenues, but the caveat to that was that later in the year
we were going to have supplementary budgets to deal with the expense side of the
ledger.
Lo and
behold, we never got to those preliminary budgets related to the expenditure
component. Now, we're not sure why because we asked here in the House many
times, what about the other side of the ledger? Why didn't we deal with that? To
date, we haven't heard that explanation.
We moved
on from the revenue side, and the revenue side continued to roll in last year's
budget with the continuation of the taxation that was brought in. As well, this
year, which I mentioned earlier, a very limited reduction in the taxation that
was brought in in the past two budgets.
Now, an
interesting comment in the 2017 budget, the first year of the mandate of this
particular government, “… tax increases must be balanced with tax
competitiveness.” They talked about doing an independent review of the tax
system. I'm not sure where that is or what's transpired. I don't think there was
a lot of reference to it yesterday.
When you
have some of the highest taxation levels in the country, it's pretty ironic that
in the third year of your term you're doing a taxation review to see, I guess,
to get some feedback on how you should handle taxation policy; yet, at the same
time, the current taxation policy that's being implemented is basically
negatively affecting your economy and making you uncompetitive with the other
jurisdictions across the country.
The
other issue that has come up, and doesn't seem to be talked about a lot and
wasn't mentioned yesterday. There seems to be a discussion that there's no new
taxes. Well, we have a carbon tax coming which is pushed on us by the federal
government. If we go back, and I'll speak to it a little later about some
initiatives we did in this House a while back in regard to the carbon tax and
what it is.
People
out there should not be confused with the fact that there's no new taxes. That's
a huge tax. Right now we have no idea how it's being implemented. There was no
indication of it yesterday in the budget, and it's really going to affect
directly every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
When you
look at the gas tax that was put on, and it has started to be rolled back.
There's some indication that the last 4 or 5 per cent that was put on will be
used, will come off at some point. Maybe this year it will be announced some
time, and we'll put four or five cents back on and that will be the carbon tax.
Well, that's going to hit every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. If it's gasoline
tax, obviously, if you drive you're going pay it.
Second
to that, we know we live on an Island, and a lot of goods and services are
transported to Newfoundland and Labrador. So the companies out there and the
providers, the trucking companies and all of those, guess what they're going to
do? They're going to pass it on. They're going to pass it on to families,
they're going to pass it on to municipalities, they're going to pass it on to
buildings, to our educational system; anywhere where there is a requirement for
goods and services.
To say
there are no new taxes, there's a double tax coming. It's a direct pay by
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and the second one is through the whole
economy and how that filters through and trickles down. We talked earlier about
the economic indicators and what they are today and going in a negative
direction. You put that on top of it, that's not, I don't think, going to
benefit in any way in terms of reaching the so-called target of 2022.
Some
jurisdictions, I just saw recently – I think there are four provinces that talk
about reaching targets in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. I think there are
four or five provinces that haven't met it. Some provinces basically said
they're not in favour of the carbon tax, particularly related to what it can do
to the economy. I just made a small reference to that.
If you
look at the oil and gas sector, outside of a gas tax that people would – buying
their gasoline would have to pay and then filters down through the economy, but
outside in terms of the biggest industries and what that would mean. Again, a
big concern in regard to the overall growth of the province in terms of our
economy and how that's achieved.
The
carbon tax, again, is something that was directed by the federal government. I
don't think we had a lot of push back in regard to that particular aspect of it.
Although, if I do remember, we came through – here in the House of Assembly, we
had a discussion and we passed a bill and legislation in regard to a carbon tax.
That was prior to the federal government announcing a requirement for a carbon
tax.
The
discussion here, I think, was five industries in the province that there would
be a two-year review done of the emissions of those five entities here in the
province. Based on that – and I know we asked questions to the Environment
Minister in regard to this. I think he said some time ago that's still ongoing,
but that was a two-year review of the greenhouse gas emissions of these five
entities here in the province, and that didn't include the offshore. It included
those five industries here in the province.
The plan
was when we passed the bill here, was that would be looked at over the next two
years. Based on those greenhouse gas emissions, I think there would be a fund
set up and you would pay into that, and it would be an incentive for them to use
that to change their habits and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And that could
be through new technology, it could be through other means, but that would be
the point of that.
Now,
that was done prior to the federal government saying they were going to regulate
a carbon tax. I remember asking here in the House to the then minister of
Environment, what happens if the federal government comes up with a new means
and mandates a tax. They said, well, that's something we'll look at then, and
that's something that we won't concern ourselves with right now because we're
doing our own thing. We're doing our made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador tax
regime.
What
came about afterwards – and I know the then minister had meetings. I think when
the federal government announced their carbon tax, the then environment minister
went to Ottawa, had some discussions, and actually left the discussions in
Ottawa because I think there was some discomfort with the fact that we were
mandated to pay a tax.
I think
the Premier said he had left on his own. There were some reports that he was
directed to leave. Either way there was some concern expressed about the carbon
tax which, in and of itself, was a good thing. But it seems we've given up on
that now and we're going to, based on the federal government, jam a carbon tax
on Newfoundland and Labrador. Which I said is two-fold, based on an individual
tax and a tax that's going to be filtered throughout the economy and trickle
down and cause the kind of negative effect that we don't need, and it's not
going to help any plan that's put in place here in regard to the economic
indicators here in the province.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It will impact everybody.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It's going to impact
everybody, indeed.
So just
for those out there to give you an idea, because I don't know whether people
realize in regard to carbon tax and what it actually is, generally it's applied
to try and encourage people of the use of carbon dioxide they emit into the
atmosphere. There are two forms, being a carbon tax or be a cap and trade
program. Some jurisdictions in Canada – I think Quebec and Ontario – have gone
with a cap and trade, where you earn credits in regard to your performance, and
you can buy credits, and based on that there's economic-wide limits on emissions
and there are a lot of permits for emissions that can buy and sell with the cost
passed on to consumers.
We
always hear about carbon tax being neutral. No one's really explained how that's
neutral, because at the end of the day, the consumer or the folks living in
Newfoundland and Labrador, it's not going to be neutral to them when that money
is coming out of their pocket. And that's taking away already limited income
through the 300 taxes and fees we already have in this province. It's not going
to be very neutral to families in Newfoundland and Labrador, I can guarantee you
that, Mr. Speaker.
Some of
the things about the carbon tax, and we've got offshore here, our oil and gas
sector, and some of the challenges with that. That's something we can look at in
regard to the offshore industry.
The
critic here in our caucus last week presented a private Member's resolution in
regard to not enforcing the carbon tax at this time. I believe this side, this
caucus, supported it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
They did. Did the other
Opposition? I'm not sure.
Anyway,
we think in terms of where we are – and he certainly articulated very clearly in
terms of why we shouldn't, why it's not appropriate at this particular time, and
other jurisdictions in Canada reflects that as well in regard to what we can do.
If I
remember correctly – I'm not sure of the number – Canada produces 2 per cent of
the world's greenhouse gas emissions. I think Newfoundland and Labrador is maybe
2 per cent of that 2 per cent in terms of what our production is in greenhouse
gases.
Now,
everybody's concerned. There are things we need to do. There are things we have
done. But when you look at Newfoundland and Labrador – and the other point my
colleague made when he got up and spoke was that we've invested. We look at
hydro development in the province and what we've done for decades. With the
completion of Muskrats Falls, I think the number is 98 or 99 per cent in
reduction in terms of hydroelectricity development.
From
that perspective, we've made huge contributions already to greenhouse gas
emissions. When you look at the intent to take Holyrood out of commission and
everything that flows out of that facility, greenhouse gas emissions and we've
heard as well from this side in regard to what that means to region out there
and what they're exposed to in regard to those emissions, but overall, if you
take that out, why wouldn't we be recognized for that already for a carbon tax –
why would we pay a carbon tax?
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have invested in all of our hydro and the
ratepayer – we've reduced the greenhouse gas emissions through that and now
we're being asked to be taxed again for making that investment. Not only that,
when you look at Upper Churchill and that amount of electricity that flows
through Quebec and they sell it, I think, it's a fifth of a cent – they've made
$28 billion off it; I think we've made $1 billion. Anyway, they send that off
and that's going into areas that are not using coal, aren't using fossil fuels
but are using electricity. So that has reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
When you
look at the partnership with Emera and the ability to sell excess energy into
the Atlantic provinces and the Eastern Seaboard, we look at places like New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia where they have, I think, maybe 60 per cent of their
electricity is generated by coal. The federal government, I think, has regulated
that needs to stop. I think it was 2020 and now they've extended into 2030.
Recognizing that it's very likely that our hydro development and our electricity
is going to offset the burning of coal in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, yet
we're asked to pay again a carbon tax to do that.
We've
made our contribution; the taxpayers will have contributed to that. So again,
the issue of the carbon tax, we don't think, is going to help as we move forward
in regard to our carbon tax.
I did
mention earlier and I'll just go back and clarify that the federal Liberals said
the provinces and territories must put a price on carbon in order to slow
climate change.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It was October 3, 2016 the
prime minister at the time announced a floor price on carbon that requires all
provinces and territories to have some form of carbon prices in by 2018. I think
that's been moved up to July. If provinces do not implement a price, Ottawa
would impose a $10 carbon, which will increase yearly to $50 a ton to 2022.
That's
the centralized move again, I guess, from Ottawa to the province. We saw it
before, I mentioned earlier, (inaudible) when you talk about surf clams in the
fishery. Some of the other provinces – British Columbia have introduced the
carbon tax; Alberta has put their own floor in with regard to what they're going
to charge. It's offside a bit with the federal government. PEI says they have a
carbon tax which is fiscally neutral. I'm not sure if any tax is ever fiscally
neutral when you're taking out of the pockets of residents and then that's
affecting their disposal income on what they can spend or not spend in the
economy.
When you
look at the money, they talk about disincentives or using it to change behaviour
in regard to what is happening, all of those things. Again, we don't think at
this point in time this is where we need to go in regard to assisting the
economy.
I did
mention in regard to the discussions – and I just found it here in what we had
done in legislation. In June of 2016, we introduced legislation and we talked
about it here that it had flexible compliance options on reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, Bill 34, that would be monitoring emissions and then encouraging
large industrial emitters in this province to reduce their emissions. If they
did not meet the targets, there would be options for them to offset those
emissions on paying into a technology fund. That was introduced at the time by
the minister and it was the preferable in our province for our options.
Further
to that, in October, that's when Minister Trudeau announced, after the fact,
about the floor price on carbon and mandating the provinces that they had to pay
it. There was the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment meeting, our
minister was there. We went there and said we didn't want to be part of it; but,
subsequently, what happened, happened. That exists today. It's still going to be
part, apparently, of what it is.
When we
go through that particular side of it; the carbon tax, as I said, people think
there are no new taxes here, there are. It's coming and it's going to filter
down through everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, I guess, by July. The
Premier has said we would have that by the spring. I guess we'll wait and see
where that's going to be and what the result of it will be.
I talked
about some of the commentary in 2017 in setting up the long-term plan of this
government in regard to fiscal management. They talked about at the time, too,
about the expenses related to – they had their Way Forward program, they had the
government renewal initiative. I think there were a couple of more names they
threw around in regard to programs to deal with some of the issues.
There
was also talk about two elements that are important to short-term for the fiscal
year, zero-based budgeting and the implementation of a more efficient balanced
management structure. Now that's interesting, because just this year, zero-based
budgeting was supposed to be all done in 2017, implementation of a more
efficient and balanced management structure.
Just
this year, the Minister of Finance talked about – he was talking about ABCs and
talking about the fact that we were going to bring in legislation to deal with
their spending. Then it was, we had a discussion with them, or he did, and the
issue then was they were going to try and get them in line. The fact being, this
zero-based budgeting was supposed to have been done. I think the prior minister
talked about reviewing stuff line by line; yet, when the actual numbers I think
were identified in last year's budget, and we asked about those numbers, the
targets hadn't been reached with the ABCs, the agencies, boards and commissions.
That's not, I don't think, in line with what the terms of the plan is and what
was outlined to do that.
There
was some talk about as well, as I said: zero-based budgeting changes to
management structure, savings from agencies, boards and commissions, annualized
savings. All of those were talked about in regard to deficit reduction and how
that would be done.
When we
look at yesterday and some of the comments and some of the documents that were
put in with the budget, I think it's relevant to recognize some of the
discussions or some of the reviews that were done by the Auditor General in
October 2017, when he looked at the current outline of information and the
fiscal plan that was laid out, not only from a budget perspective but from a
seven-year plan that was laid out to 2022. That was talked about yesterday in
regard to reaching a balanced budget by that time and if it's realistic.
One of
the observations at that point in time, and we all know this: “The Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador generates more revenue, on a per capita basis, than
every other province. This suggests that revenue is not the primary issue
creating the deficits.”
They
talked about: “The 2016-17 Public Accounts shows a reduction in” expenditures
“of $68 million from the previous year.” And that's program expenses.
It goes
on to talk about debt servicing. We see that's significant this year. I think
it's gone up $600 million, if I remember correctly. He says in his October 2017
report in looking at the province's plan and what they've laid out long-term, he
said: “The Provincial forecast for the period 2017-18 to 2022-23 expects
expenses to drop by 2.3% over that period.”
His
concern with that is: “Expenses over the six year period to 2022-23 are forecast
by the Province to reduce slightly by $187 million – a 2.3% decline.”
The
issue with that was when you look at the plan that was laid out yesterday and
apparently the continued plan for 2017, is that amount of reduction and if you
look at variables like the cost of oil, the amount of production, other
intervening variables that may appear at a point in time in regard to the
economy, whether there's a slowdown. We have a slowdown now. There's no
indication in the information presented yesterday how that's going to improve
the economic indicators and those sorts of things.
The
Auditor General in 2017 talked about on a per capita basis, Newfoundland and
Labrador generates more revenue than any other province, per capita spending in
this province is substantially higher than per capita revenues and we spend more
than every other province by a considerable margin. He's concern, and I guess
the budget yesterday sort of recognized that, that the path we're on and the
projections that are given are really not going to hit what the government is
suggesting in 2022-23.
Newfoundland and Labrador spends in excess of 21 per cent more per capita than
the next highest province, which is Saskatchewan. So the 2.3 per cent reduction,
his point, is not going to hit the target that's being proposed.
He
talked about a risk to achieving a balanced budget. I guess that goes to what's
been talked about yesterday and what the minister brought in in regard to that
budget. He said: “A budget forecast involves making reasonable estimates based
on realistic assumptions regarding expectations of future outcomes. The longer
the forecast period, the greater the risk that expected outcomes may be
significantly different than expected.
The six
year revenue forecast to 2022-23 is based on assumptions regarding such items as
oil prices, oil production, exchange rates and future economic activity in a
variety of sectors of the economy.”
When I
started earlier, I talked about the oil and gas, the fishery, tourism, the IT
sector, the forestry industry. All of those ones that need to have activity.
Muskrat Falls is coming down. You have about 4,000 employed there; they're
coming out, all of those – and what's going to help meet these goals and targets
through economic activity because that's where the wealth needs to be generated.
As I
said, the Auditor General said the six-year revenue forecast to 2022-23, the
assumption based on such things as oil prices, oil production, exchange rates
and future economic activity in a variety of sectors of the economy. He also
goes on to say: While it is possible that the forecast may be exceeded, there is
considerable risk that the revenue forecast may not be achieved. For example,
oil royalties may be less than expected as a result of lower than expected oil
prices, lower than expected production.
As I
said before, this was an administration prior to an Opposition, when coming in,
said we were addicted to oil; yet, everything here really on this is – the major
component of it is related to oil.
When we
look at revenues through the taxation and what's been implemented, there was
indeed an increase. I guess on the reverse side of that, one needs to ask, what
effect did that have on the economy. You're taking disposable income out of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pockets. The economic indicators – we'll look
at in a little while – show the trickle-down effect of that is it's taking money
out of the economy and people don't spend.
Then the
other side of it talked about our population, our demographics and to have
people stay and live here in the province. If people wanted to move here, if you
don't have that environment where people want to come and raise their families –
small business want to come, entrepreneurs want to come and invest – that
becomes problematic in driving the economy.
The
Auditor General said as well: “Oil royalties represent” – at that time – “about
14% of total revenue” from where it was in 2011-2012.
This is
the other point too; on the expenditure side we talked about a 2.3 per cent
reduction, which is marginal, and whether it could ever be achieved. Then he
talked about on the revenue side, “… the six year period to 2022-23 is forecast
by the Province to grow by $1.1 billion.” So that's the revenue side of it. The
forecast is a growth of $1.1 billion in revenues by the time we get to 2022-23.
Where's that coming from?
The
Auditor General looked at that, and this is what he said: “Almost 27% of this
growth is expected from oil (predominantly increased oil prices).” So that's
back to what we talked about earlier in regard to those 11 agencies that gives
forecasting and some direction or some thoughts on how we're getting, in the
future, to a certain percentage or a certain dollar for a barrel of oil.
Then it
factors into, from the exporting side of things, what the cost is and the
exchange rate and all those kinds of things. There are variables there that are
very tenuous. They're up and down, based on the geopolitics of the world and
what is going on, who's producing and who's not, who's in OPEC and who's not.
All of that is factored into what the oil price is.
The AG
recognizes that based on the forecast that's given by this current
administration, there are many variables in place on that $1.1 billion in new
revenue – yes, $1.1 billion, which is significant.
Some of
the other things he talked about in regard to the results of: “Other tax revenue
may be negatively impacted by a slowing economy.” This is the Auditor General,
and this is what we've said and what we've talked about, is that there is huge
concern and has been – and I think we've seen the result of that in the amount
of taxation and what's used in that particular case.
Again, I
keep repeating, you're taking the money out of people's pockets. The
entrepreneurs, the businesses aren't seeing what they usually would see in
activity in their companies. Just all along it causes concern.
The
Auditor General recognized: Other tax revenue may be negatively affected by a
slow economy. If you're going to take $1.2 billion and raise new money, where
are you getting it from? If you're taking it out of the economy, you're taking
it out of people's pockets. That doesn't help the economic indicators that we
talked about in regard to this.
Muskrat
Falls revenue – and this is one of the key areas that has been talked about
before in regard to where this money is coming from – the $1.2 billion. I don't
know if I read that, but the Auditor General on using the reference to the
revenues of $1.2 billion says: “Almost 27% of this growth is expected from oil
(predominantly increased oil prices) and the remaining 73% from other sources
(including expected profit from Muskrat Falls).”
Now
that's interesting, because folks on the other side have said and the Premier
has said no one wants to buy the power; yet, the Auditor General in reviewing
the fiscal forecast of his government says that 73 per cent of the $1.2 billion
they expect to raise by 2022-23 to put in the coffers, 73 per cent is coming
from other sources including expected profit from Muskrat Falls.
We know
when we wrote – and I have it here somewhere – a while ago, asked a bunch of
questions on Muskrat Falls operations and what had transpired. We asked a number
of questions, and I think it was November 2016 I wrote the minister – no, that's
when a response came. It was prior to that, a few months, I think maybe three
months prior to that. I know she told me she had to go to Nalcor and Natural
Resources to get all that information. And that would have been under the new
CEO, Mr. Stan Marshall, who was brought in by the current administration and
would have been related to the new board of directors that were appointed. So
that's where this information would have come from.
In
regard to that reference of what the AG said: 73 per cent of that growth in
revenue is going to come from profit from Muskrat Falls. We said in the fall of
2015, we asked: it was suggested by the CEO of Nalcor in a report to government
that there was the potential of a $3.3 billion in electricity export revenue
that was not counted in the project's finance. That was the question we asked to
Nalcor and the new CEO after the changes were made.
At that
time we also asked – we talked about excess power and how much power is expected
to be exported over the next 35 years at what rates. What will both the cost and
revenue from the export of excess energy sales be?
We were
looking for the project in regard to the sale of excess energy, because it was
always the intent that the excess energy would allow for reduction in
electricity rates. So that would help offset. That's why we were looking for the
information from the new CEO of Nalcor.
We
committed to maximizing the value – and this was some of the response we got
back. We are committed to maximizing the value of the province's energy assets
for domestic use and export. Nalcor actively markets and sells our available
excess energy to external customers via spot markets. My understanding for that
is that at any particular time energy is put into the spot market and there is
bidding done on that particular electricity at a particular time, and the rates
can fluctuate up and down in terms of what that would be.
Obviously, in much needed times of the year, whether it's cold temperatures, or
in the US in a hotter environment where you have air conditioning, that sort of
thing going on. It depends on the time of the year and what the spot market will
deliver. No doubt, over that period of time you would demonstrate an average
rate or rate of return or what that cost would be over 12 months.
In
response to our question in regard to the revenues and the potential of $3.3
billion that was referenced by the CEO of Nalcor – we were told they would be
into the market and spot market and generate what they need to generate. They
gave us a report that: attached represents the current forecasts for surplus
energy and outlook for electricity prices.
This
would have included all the assumptions, all the information they had in regard
to electricity forecast and rates. Now, interestingly enough, prior to the new
CEO coming in – obviously, assumptions were done and forecast and all those
types of things in energy. But after he came in, they changed somewhat. They
were told they were changed. Yet when he came in and took over, the same people
stayed in place. There was no one let go. The project manager for Muskrat Falls
stayed, the VPs all stayed, there was nobody changed.
We were
told the assumptions changed and the assumptions were wrong. Maybe they were, I
don't know. Maybe the inquiry will determine that they were wrong. But it is
kind of different that the same people who were always there – shortly after he
came in, he told us the assumptions were wrong. What was it based on because the
same people who were there prior to had, I guess, come up with the assumptions,
yet after the fact they were wrong. I guess at some point someone will explain
that.
When you
look at the excess power again and what we asked for, we also continue to
explore other potential options to export Newfoundland and Labrador surplus
electricity. An interconnection to the North American grid will open up
additional opportunities.
The
minister brought in a bill the other day which deals with the interconnection
and the regulatory framework we need to follow as we move forward with the line
coming from Labrador into the Island and then on to Nova Scotia and into the
Eastern Seaboard, so that provides that circuit. We certainly supported that and
that was always part of the original plan to do that because obviously you need
that. You need to comply with the FERC rules; the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission is how it's referred to. In Quebec they have the parallel, Régie I
think it's called, and that does similar things.
That
means non-discriminatory actions in regard to the transmission of electricity.
So if one jurisdiction is doing it and they allow you to do it, you need to
complement and do the same thing. We need to do that to allow us to flow and do
what needs to be done, and that just brings it in line. So we had a good
discussion and that. I thank the minister and her colleagues. We had a really
good discussion on that, and her staff. It was very well done.
Getting
back to what we asked for in regard to the excess energy, what we were given,
and the interconnection to the North American grid – now bear in mind, the
Premier said there's no one who wants the energy, they can't sell it, yet we
have seen in the past number of months, even, I think it was Massachusetts or
New Hampshire got together and put out a broad proposal for seven or eight
terawatts of power to flow down to them. There's a little roadblock, but I think
Hydro-Québec had won that proposal to send that electricity down. Obviously, the
market is there and there's a need for it, which is important.
So when
you look at the question that was asked in regard to a reference made to
electricity, the cost of $3.3 billion electricity export revenue that was not
counted in the project's finances, we just look for details.
So what
we got was a chart and it said: Forecasted excess energy, energy available for
export. So when you go across, starting in 2020 – and we're told that first
power from Muskrat would probably be in 2019 now – it shows the production of
energy that's available. Then it looks at total export sales, net revenue in
millions of dollars.
It
starts in 2020. In 2020, it says $153 million, then it goes to $135 million,
$123 million and then it goes on to 2027, $167 million. So what it's recognizing
here, from the CEO of Nalcor and the folks over there and the information they
provided, is that the excess energy, here's what we're projecting.
The
Auditor General identified that in government's forecast, for their seven-year
forecast, they're recommending a $1.1 billion increase in their revenues to get
to their balanced books in 2023-23 and up to 70 per cent of that could be
profits from Muskrat Falls. So I assume they're using this information as part
of that, but it's kind of difficult to get that understanding when the Premier
said no one wants the energy.
Anyway,
we'll go back to what was presented to us. From 2020 to 2040, the excess sales,
it ravages from $100 million a year, $150 million a year to, I think, the
highest is $190 million a year. So from 2020 to 2040, over a 20-year period,
it's about $3.5 billion. That's what it works out to.
So this
is information that we didn't calculate. We didn't come up with this. This came
from Nalcor and from the minister on direct question of the excess sales and
what are you projecting and what is your forecast. I think it ties in nicely to
what the Auditor General had said, in 2017, when he looked at some of the
forecasts. The forecast is the government is going to get these revenues and
where are the revenues coming from. This is the government's plan. It's not
anything we – it's theirs and the AG looked at it and this is the supporting
documentations in regard to what they're suggesting. As I said, that was from
Nalcor and the minister; we asked for and got it I think in the fall of 2016.
In
regard to that as well, we had discussions about: Has the total net revenue from
the sale of excess energy been factored into the project's finances? Please
demonstrate where this is factored in and the impact on the cost of the project
and domestic power rates in this province. That was the question we proposed. At
that time the answer was: No, the revenue from the sales of energy in excess of
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's base block entitlement was not factored into
the estimated domestic electricity rates released on June 24, 2016 or this
project cost update at the time.
That was
the question we asked regarding the actual rate and the excess energy, because
we don't get much discussion on that. We hear comments that no one wants it, we
can't sell it, yet the Crown corporation that's overseeing all this with the new
CEO, the new board of directors, this information came out after that and it's
clearly identifying that they're projecting over a 20-year period over $3
billion sales in excess revenue, and the government is using that in their
forecast. That's the information that's made available to us.
Mr.
Speaker, that goes to that issue and ties into that budget and, as I started
today, talked about looking at the projections that are being made for seven
years to get us to 2022-23 – is it conceivable? Can we get there? I talked about
the fact that expenses are going to reduce about by about 2.3 per cent. When you
look in and factor in those other variables related to commodity prices, in
particular oil prices, those types of things, whether there's a recession or
not, whether the economic indicators we have here and most going in wrong
direction, whether they can help to drive the economy and create some of that
wealth that supposedly is going to be created, I guess we'll see.
We also
asked about – because we had a discussion here in the House about this – Quebec
and whether discussions are going on. A number of months ago, the Energy
minister in Quebec said there were discussions going on but when you asked here
they said no, there was no discussions going on.
We also
asked at that time: Is the current government exploring the option of selling
excess energy through Hydro-Québec? Have any negotiations commenced with
Hydro-Québec? Answer: Nalcor has been already selling excess energy in Labrador
using Hydro-Québec's transmission system for several years. That's not new. The
company continues to explore opportunities with multiple customers to enhance
the value of energy that is surplus to the province's needs. This says: Neither
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador or Nalcor Energy has been involved
in discussions with Hydro-Québec on Muskrat Falls power.
This
response was generated in late 2016, if I remember correctly – yes, indeed it
was. I just think that ties in nicely to the seven-year plan that this
administration talks about. It ties in nicely to the Auditor General and what he
reviewed in 2017, how he talked about the balance sheet and the expenses, talked
about the revenues and talked about the 2.3 per cent and I'm not sure whether
that's going to get you to 2022. And what they talked about yesterday in terms
of getting back to balanced books and surplus and as well from determining, from
the revenue side of things, whether you can reach where you need to reach and
where that revenue is projected to come from, I think that ties in and certainly
poses a lot of questions in regard to what the current administration talks
about when they talk about their expenses and revenues.
I wanted
to talk about too, Mr. Speaker, go back and look at some of the budgets in
regard to – we heard about investments from the federal government. No doubt,
much like past administrations at various times there has been significant
dollars allocated for infrastructure. In Canada, my understanding is as the pot
goes up or the money goes up for infrastructure, it's divvied up per capita.
So we've
asked here, and I know my colleagues have asked – and we've talked about the
federal government, we're getting more money, we're getting this and we're
getting that, we said well, show us, outside of per capita of any other
province, how much we're getting and what the extra money is. But we have been
unable to get that. I guess we're just like any other program in Canada; we're
getting per capita funding. If the infrastructure goes up or some money goes up,
it's shared up across the country on a per capita basis.
If you
look back at some of the expenses in regard to what our expenditures are and you
look at those dating back to 2015-2016, we know the biggest contributor to our
expenses is health care and the challenges we have with health care. We know the
new health and social transfer – the three main transfers for the federal
government, I guess, are health, social transfers and equalization.
Equalization, we're not getting very much on that, but on health and social
transfers, the health, if I remember correctly a number of years ago, there were
discussions by the various provinces and I think the Harper government had
talked about at the time, I think there was 6 per cent in terms of growth in
health care spending in Canada and what the transfer would be to the provinces.
The negotiation was they wanted to keep it at 6 per cent and then they had
negotiations after the new prime minister came in.
I think
the old Harper government had recommended going down to 3 per cent and the
current administration, Prime Minister Trudeau had gone with that, the 3 per
cent. I remember at the time there was discussions and our Premier went up and
other premiers went up and they talked about 3 per cent wasn't enough and they
weren't going to sign. But then shortly after, they went out of the room and
they were all lined up signing the 3 per cent.
My
understanding right now is 3 per cent or up to 3 per cent based on economic
indicators, that's how federal funding to the provinces for health care every
year, that's the formula that's in place. We saw some moderate increase in
transfers from the federal government for health care, so I assume that's the 3
per cent or something close to it that brings it up to a small increase. Social
transfers, I think it's the same thing. There's a calculation done to bring it
up. So there's really no new money in that just for Newfoundland and Labrador.
That's just money on a per capita basis or on a formula basis for all
jurisdictions in Canada when that's done.
The
other item is the cost and spending and expenditures, what that relates to. So
you go back to 2015, the revised 2014-2015 was roughly $7.9 billion and that was
our last year. Then in 2015-2016, it went to $8.0 billion. In 2016 it was
revised to about $8.1 billion. In budget 2016-2017, it went to $8.4 billion.
That's our expenses. So that's $8.4 billion and then we get to 2017 it was
revised to $8.4 billion budget, went down a little to $8.1 billion and the
budget for this year, in terms of overall expenses, is almost up to $8.4 billion
again.
When you
talk about reducing expenditures and critical of some of the things we had done,
it doesn't bear fruit when you look at the actual numbers and what's transpired
since this administration has come in in 2016.
The
other interesting thing when you go back and look at the previous budgets – and
I reference the federal government and while we continuously hear about the
investments being made and the extra investments being made and our great
relationship with Ottawa and what's that doing for us, it's interesting when we
go back and look. In 2015, health and social transfers were about 9.9 per cent.
Other federal resources were about 6.5 per cent. So total federal transfers were
6.5 per cent, when you go back and look at the budget documentations for prior
years. That was 2015.
If you
look at 2016, actually it went down – no, sorry, it went up to 17.5 per cent. So
about a percentage point. From 16.5 per cent to 17.5 per cent, and the health
and social transfers were 10.6 per cent and other transfers about 6.9 per cent.
When you
go through and look at these years, really, the per cent or half per cent
increase in federal government expenditures or funds coming to this province is
solely related to a formula for social transfers, or for health transfers. It's
not based on any new money that's been directed toward Newfoundland and
Labrador. It's based on a per capita basis and it's based on a formula that's
already in place.
If you
look at 2017, and you look at the expenditures as well, the federal government
from that perspective, I think in Budget
2016 it was 17.5 per cent, in Budget
2017 it's 17.1 per cent. So it went down 0.4 per cent. If we look at the
documents that were presented yesterday in regard to federal transfers and where
we are, again, the health and social transfers are about 9.7 per cent and the
other federal transfers are about 7.3 per cent. So that means about 17 per cent.
When you
look at the numbers in total from federal transfers:
Budget 2015 it was 16.5 per cent; budget '16 it was 17.5 per cent;
budget '17 was 17.1 per cent, and Budget
2018 was 17 per cent. Really, there's been no change in terms of overall
contribution to Newfoundland and Labrador from the federal government; yet, we
seem to hear a different story. In actual fact, the numbers don't bear that out.
Now
that's related to health and social transfers and other federal sources. Those
federal sources could mean being able to leverage federal dollars for things
like infrastructure, small crafts and harbours, a whole range of initiatives.
Again, as I said, that's on a per capita basis.
We look
at our taxation levels and where our revenue comes from, that as well is
significant because that ties back to what we talked about in terms of the
economy and doing what we need to do. We're almost 51 per cent in regard to
where the taxation comes from. We're picking up 51 per cent from business, from
the economy, from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and taking it out of their
pockets. That's where it's coming from. That's directly tied to the economy, to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and trying to make sure we can drive
the economy and make use of the targets that have been outlined by this current
administration in regard to some of the things they are talking about.
We
talked about the transfers. One of the ones we've had a discussion about for the
past while is related to equalization and some of the initiatives in regard to
that and some of the actions that have been taken or not taken by the current
administration.
I'll say
upfront, and I've talked to this over the past couple of years and asked
questions here in the House. I know in the initial budget of this government in
2016, I think the minister at the time – or maybe it was 2018 – referenced the
fact of the unfairness and what's happening in that. Really, in the first two
years that side wasn't allowed to talk about equalization, wasn't allowed to
discuss it.
I think
the Premier said at one point: it is what it is, we can't ask Ottawa. With the
dramatic cut in a barrel of oil, I know the Premier of Alberta, the Premier of
Saskatchewan were quick to ask about the three-year rolling average for
qualifying for equalization and to get you in. It wasn't really receptive of a
dramatic drop in oil prices and how negatively that affected – I don't think
there has ever been in Canada a type of reduction that transpired over that
period of time that affected Newfoundland and Labrador as well.
There
was a lobby started by two of those jurisdictions with the federal government –
we never took part – to look at is there a means or mechanisms to do that. Under
the formula there is a small caveat, is my understanding, to look at the whole
fiscal piece related to the dramatic drop in oil prices. I think when the
calculation was done it was only about $30 million that we could get access to
in regard to that.
We had
said and lobbied: Well, let's start the discussion. Let's at least start the
discussion on equalization. I think 2019 is the period to start, but with that
three-year moving average and with two years in between –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Order, please!
The
noise level in the House is a little high. I ask Members to keep their comments
low, unless they're speaking.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, indeed, and there's more
to come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
So with
the whole equalization piece in regard to lobbying and advocating the formula as
it's set up now, and most people agree, it doesn't reflect changes in Atlantic
Canada, changes in demographics and the direction we're going, and it's based on
a per capita basis. When you look at some of the challenges we have in regard to
delivery of service and the demographics of where we're going, I think everyone
agrees it needs to be looked at. It's not fair. It's not fair for Newfoundland
and Labrador and it's not fair for other jurisdictions. I think we really need
to look at the caveat of natural resources and what's included in the
calculation and the fiscal capacity. The last time we signed 50 per cent of oil
royalties would be used in that fiscal capacity.
When you
look at that and non-renewable resources that are allowed into the fiscal
capacity, and then you compare it to the non-renewable that's not included, and
particularly related to Quebec – and nothing particular against Quebec, but
they've been able to avail of a program and avail of it to an extreme advantage
to them. So right now, as an example, the hydro from Upper Churchill, the
figures in regard to what Quebec has earned is in excess of $20 billion on that
and Newfoundland and Labrador probably a billion and a half over that same
period of time. But in the calculation right now, those revenues that they've
derived from our river, Upper Churchill, that's not included in their fiscal
capacity, in the calculation. Yet ours, in regard to natural resources, 50 per
cent is indeed included.
Further
to that, my understanding is Hydro-Québec does a whole range of leasing of
property to the provincial government, which again generates revenue through
Hydro-Québec, but it's not included in the overall fiscal capacity in terms of
determining what ability provinces have to raise revenue and, in doing that,
under the constitution of Canada, it is that you provide reasonable level of
taxation for reasonable level of services. That's a fundamental principle. And
if you can't do that, the equalization program is supposed to be responsive to
the needs of that particular province.
So what
we saw here in the province in 2016, and continuing, is a very increased level
of taxation that is hindering the province, hindering growth, hindering a
province where people want to do business, entrepreneurs want to invest, people
want to live and raise their families, we want to attract people here so all of
that – and that's a decision that the current government made in regard to the
level of taxation and their ability to drive and create the environment for
economic activity, but the general principle of the equalization is that that
shouldn't happen. There should be a means there to address that in what
transpires in regard to the economy. It's much more reflective than a five-year
period where you have a three-period to review the data, you have two years then
after that before it's implemented.
I think
the fiscal capacity issue needs to be changed and also the fiscal cap, which
looks at how much is taken into consideration in regard to revenue generation.
As I said Newfoundland and Labrador, 50 per cent of our natural resources,
non-renewable resources, are introduced on part of that.
I talked
about the payments from Ottawa, the three streams. I talked about two of them
but if you look at equalization in 2018-2019 and what's going to flow to some of
the provinces, the equalization pot this year in 2018-2019 is almost $19
billion. It's $18.9 billion.
When you
look at those that are receiving it, significant dollars: Prince Edward Island,
$419 million. I'll look at the Atlantic provinces: Nova Scotia, $1.9 billion.
Nova Scotia just recently brought down a budget and showed a surplus with a $1.9
billion equalization number; New Brunswick, again very high, almost $1.9 billion
in equalization payments. Quebec, this year, will receive $11.7 billion. Last
year, it was a little over $11 billion. So $700 million it's gone up, which is
amazing when you think about it. We don't want to talk about it here.
The
federal support to Ontario, under the third phase of transfers from the federal
government, equalization, at $963 million. Ontario in the past number of years
dating back to 2013-2014, $3.1 billion; the following year, $1.9 billion; $2.3
billion; 2016-2017, $2.3 billion; 2017-2018, $1.4 billion; and this year will
receive $963 million. So that's just a framework when we talk about
equalization, transfers and those types of things that we need to do.
As I
said, we've been vocal on that. We've asked the current administration to take a
look and get our local MPs to make the case. I think there was a case made. Many
of the articles that have been done – even the parliamentary officer in Ottawa
just recently did a review, looked at the cases, and looked at the various
provisions of – what if you changed some variables of the equalization formula?
What if you took the cap off for natural resources? What if you included
renewable resources into the calculation? What would that mean for various
jurisdictions?
With
various changes to that, there would be significant changes for Newfoundland and
Labrador ranging currently anywhere from $300 million to $500 million that would
flow to Newfoundland and Labrador with a revised equalization formula. So think
about that today, at the very least if we had $300 million, $400 million, $500
million to $1.6 million, $1.7 million like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, that
would get us to the principle that enshrined in the constitution of reasonable
levels of taxation for reasonable levels of services, instead of dealing with
these in excess of 300 taxes and fees – which there's another coming down the
pipe this year of a carbon tax, which really nobody is talking about or nobody
is really giving much detail in this budget for what it's going to mean for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and what it's going to mean for our economy.
Apparently, there's no analysis done of that and what it's going to mean for us.
Mr.
Speaker, the other issue that drives economic activity – and I spoke to it
briefly – is personal income tax rates both on a federal and provincial level,
and again how that speaks to the incentive for people to be part of this
province, want to stay here, and want to be part of growing the economy which is
hugely important for the long term and usually important if government has any
possibility of reaching its targets it set out yesterday and has talked about
for the past number of years in regard to getting to 2022-23 and getting into a
surplus.
Some of
the things we talk about in offshore oil production is varied in regard to what
happens. The Hebron oil project is expected to be in production and ramp up in
the next several years. We have an expectation that oil production is going to
move up. Minerals on one side from that perspective, there's some good news
there in that.
One of
the major concerns is capital investment. The capital investments over the past
number of years in various projects we've done, megaprojects. Where are we going
from here? We have Muskrat Falls that will be winding down. There are over 4,000
people employed with that. When you look at the various companies and those
types of things that are engaged and the spinoff from that, that's one of the
major indicators that's of significant concern in how we fill that void as we
move forward. There was nothing in the budget yesterday in regard to an
announcement on how that void is going to be filled or what the incentives are
to do it.
I
mentioned earlier about Voisey's Bay and the underground mine, there's nothing
on that. I spoke about the Grieg project that we left off, as a MOU was in
place. That hasn't progressed yet; significant ones to look at in regard to the
economy and how it flows ahead. Concerns, as I mentioned earlier too, in regard
to particular tariffs related to NAFTA and the free trade agreement, the
negation of that and how that's going to affect significant industries here in
the province. Capital investment is extremely important, where that's going.
To that
point, in our oil and gas sector, we had discussions too, a while back, in
regard to new environmental assessments that have been done by the federal
government and that's coming our way. A lot of concerns by Noia with what that's
going to mean by making it attractive and the timelines to get, especially,
exploration operational.
We look
at the process in oil companies around the world coming here and you look at
what we've done. Our administration invested heavily in seismic work and through
that we were able to establish data in what's offshore and use that data to sell
it to – or not sell it to, but make it available to those companies and they can
make informed decisions about prospectivity and what's actually out there.
We have
some control as well as to what's out there. We've seen record land sales in the
past number of years related to that and because of that, because of that
investment. Having said that, that's good to have, but to get to the next step,
I mean they'll do their exploratory work, but to continue the land sales – they
were down a little in the last year – you can't have barriers. You can't have
barriers to allow that development or exploration to occur.
Some of
the main concerns expressed in regard to this new environmental assessment is it
could slow down exploration. It gets heavy on the regulatory side of things in
terms of who can engage in a process to give perspective on an environmental
assessment and what transpires.
That's a
concern of the industry and I think it's going to affect or could affect our
industry and we really need to have a good discussion with the federal
government and be strong in our advocacy to make sure that the intent of the
1985 Atlantic Accord ensures jurisdiction, regulatory framework. The C-NLOPB has
functioned here to oversee our oil and gas sector over the past number of years
and we have equal representation. That should be the entity to do environmental
assessments.
I know
the minister has commented on that in the public before in regard to her
preference. I think, as a government on that side, they need to continue that.
If that breaks ranks with their federal colleagues, well, so be it, because the
issue here is Newfoundland and Labrador, the building of our industry to making
sure our oil and gas sector continues to flow. It has to continue to flow.
That's
one of the variables that we have to ensure it doesn't negatively affect our
industry because we get back to the same point in terms of the projections and
generating wealth and where wealth is coming from and all of those things. It's
all tied in. We can't have frameworks in place that's not supporting what we
need to do here in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said, industry groups, I've
spoken to them myself in terms of concerns they have and how we move this
forward.
Now,
speaking of that side of it; yesterday and I guess the day preceding, the
minister talked about, I think there's a move afoot – and there wasn't much
detail in the budget in regard to Nalcor and separating out the oil and gas
entity within Nalcor and those groups of entities that are there. Not a lot of
detail. I'm not sure of the rationale. Is it a cost?
There
was talk about branding. I'm not sure about branding. We've had huge success
with the oil and gas sector in this province – huge success. When we look at the
wells, we look at the exploration that's gone on, talked about land sales,
talked about the seismic work that was done, talked about the activity in our
offshore and continuing to move that. I'm not sure if branding or what the
actual rationale was for it. Is there a cost associated to it?
The
entity of Nalcor would hold renewable and the non-renewable resources of our
province – the energy cluster of everything we have. Taking one out and pulling
it out and bringing it in to a line department. Right now it's been a Crown
corporation. The expertise is there, they've developed the knowledge, they've
got corporate knowledge, they have all of that and it's intertwined with all of
the assets that we use for energy and energy production. And really, it was
modelled after what we see in Norway and other areas of the world in regard to
bringing that cluster together and that shared perspective and synergies that
can be used for that.
So I
guess, in the days ahead, we'll get some enlightenment in regard to where that's
to, what it's all about, and how it holds best for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Because, at the end, that's what we're all concerned about, to make sure that we
can make sure we can move ahead.
Yesterday as well in the budget there was one component – and we had a lot of
discussion here in regard to the legalization of cannabis. I know the Leader of
the Opposition has asked a lot of questions in regard to the readiness of that.
I guess this is another issue where the big hand from Ottawa comes down and
tells you we're going to do this and here it is and go do it, a centralized
view. And a time frame was put in place to do this.
I know
yesterday in the budget, if I remember correctly, there was $2 million, in terms
of the revenue stream, that's supposed to be generated by the sale of cannabis
here in the province. Now, I know there were a lot of questions asked here in
regard to, well, what's the cost-benefit done, where are the evidence-based
decisions – if we've heard that once, we've heard it 1,000 times over the past
three years from across the floor. Yet when we ask the question about show us
the projections of sales, show us the projections of returns on taxation, show
us the cost of implementing it – there's $40 million in remittances from Canopy
Growth, their decision made with Canopy Growth in terms of them coming to the
province, and there's $40 million over a period of time that they're going to
get. But how does that factor in to the bigger picture? What's the return to the
people?
One of
the important questions that were asked was: Is this going to cost the taxpayer
of Newfoundland and Labrador anything to implement this? We still don't have the
answer. All we saw yesterday was a reference to a $2.2 million revenue line – no
idea where it's coming from, what it's based on. So hopefully over the next
discussion days, weeks we get into the budget we'll get some clear idea of what
that's all about and where it's coming from.
Interestingly enough, Nova Scotia tabled a budget just recently and they
factored in almost $30 million, $29.4 million relying heavily on cannabis sales.
Now, we're nowhere near that, obviously, at $2 million; but again, it's nice to
see, as we move forward in the weeks ahead, from the minister, exactly what the
details are and how that's going to roll out. I know we talked about there's a
component of education, certainly for our youth, educating our youth in regard
to the use of cannabis. There's the side of addictions; the
Highway Traffic Act, enforcement.
There's a lot of discussion in the country about how you determine if somebody
is under the influence of cannabis. Right now, my understanding is there's no
definitive test or blood test or anything that can be done to definitively say
that someone is under the influence of cannabis.
There's
also the issue of the use by our youth. Many in the science community and
medical professionals would say that the human brain continues to develop till
the age of 25, but my understanding is the legalization is a lot younger than
that. That poses concerns and we need to have that discussion. Some of the data
that's coming forward about those results is certainly concerning as well.
So the
whole financial side of it is of concern and that certainly needs to be brought
to light in the days and weeks ahead as we go through all of this.
As I've
spoken earlier this morning and started off and talked about those industries
and all the ones that are important to Newfoundland and Labrador and tied it
into the fiscal plan of this administration over the past seven years and what
was announced yesterday, there really was nothing announced yesterday to give
any hope or direction to why – I heard someone gave the example, so you have a
young family now with two kids that are in school. They're in sports. They're in
activities. Prior to yesterday if they were thinking about leaving or they were
thinking about making more decisions, what would have been in the budget
yesterday or what direction would have been given or plan laid out for them to
say no, we think there's opportunity and we're going to stick around.
I don't
think there was a lot. I think we need to continue to make that environment. I
didn't get to some of the economic indicators and where they're going, but
that's not the picture that I think we need to see going forward. If we don't
get there, it's not going to be for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. Collectively, across on all sides, we want what's best for
Newfoundland and Labrador. We may not agree on everything, but I think we do
want what's best. I guess the rule is: How do we get there? So I think there'll
be a lot of questions in the weeks ahead and I look forward to having that
debate.
Mr.
Speaker, normally, on Wednesdays, we adjourn activity at this particular time.
So I'd like to put forward that I adjourn debate at this time on budget and will
pick it up at the next sitting of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
In accordance with
paragraph 9(1)(b) of the Standing Orders, we will adjourn until 2 o'clock.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
In the
public gallery today, I would like to welcome family and friends of Michael
Jones. He is the subject of a Member's statement.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also watching the House of
Assembly over the live stream, I would like to send special greetings to the
students and staff of St. Paul's Junior High School here in St. John's. They
will be mentioned in a Member's statement today.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements
today, we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Mount Pearl
North, Labrador West, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, Virginia Waters -
Pleasantville and Cape St. Francis.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to thank Visions Employment Plus Incorporated for the valuable service
they provide to their clients.
Established in October 1994, they are a not-for-profit,
community-based employment corporation providing employment services and
supports to individuals with a primary diagnosis of intellectual disability.
Visions Employment's objective is to provide the supports
and services necessary in the creation of equal employment opportunities for
their clients while providing ongoing support and assistance in the monitoring
and maintenance of existing employment placements.
Their client population is unemployed adults and youth with
a primary diagnosis of an intellectual disability eligible for services under
the Labor Market Agreement for Persons with Disabilities who face barriers to
employment. Employment partnerships and services extend throughout the City of
Mount Pearl and surrounding areas.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking
Visions Employment and their sponsors for all the valuable work that they do for
their clients.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to Gordon
Parsons, a legend and patriot of Labrador.
Mark Twain once said, “Never pick a fight with someone who
buys ink by the barrel.” Such was the case with Gord when he was editor and
owner of The Aurora newspaper, but he
was fair.
Gord was born in St. John's, educated in Flatrock, moved to
Goose Bay in 1963 and to Labrador West in 1973. Gord quickly adopted Labrador as
his new home and he became immersed in the many activities of the Big Land. He
was part of the first group to travel Route 389 to Baie-Comeau and the
Trans-Labrador Highway to Happy Valley-Goose Bay long before they were called
highways.
Gord's many interests included birdwatching, ham radios,
pistol and rifle shooting, photography, and especially the environment, and he
became active in all organizations associated with them.
Gord loved the Labrador land
and its wildlife, especially birds, but most of all he loved its people. Gord
passed away on March 15 at the age of 73 years.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in the celebration of a life gone way too soon.
Rest in
peace, my friend.
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 stand
on March 28, what would have been the 74th birthday of Michael John Jones –
father, grandfather, brother, uncle, visionary filmmaker, inspirer and mentor
especially of young people – had Mike lived two more weeks.
His
untimely death has brought to the general public the man behind the scenes, the
co-founder of the filmmakers co-operative, NIFCO, known to his peers as the
godfather of filmmaking in this province – a multi-million dollar industry now
that began with the iconic The Adventure
of Faustus Bidgood, the making of which in itself was an adventure. As
described by brother Andy Jones, “the crazy best outta control scariest most
passionate thing I have ever done and the closest attempt at pure art that I was
ever involved in.” What a description of Mike's life and work.
I ask
the Members of this House to join Mike's family, friends and colleagues in the
film industry as they celebrate his life and grieve the loss of this vital
person.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
would like to welcome the students and staff of St. Paul's.
I rise
in this hon. House to congratulate the students and staff of St. Paul's Junior
High on the fantastic Spring Fling this past weekend. This celebration is an
annual event organized by the students each spring with close to 400 people from
the community in attendance and it was a resounding success.
With the
theme, Movie Music and More, the students played classic numbers such as the
Mission Impossible theme song to more recent songs like How Far I'll Go, from
Moana. From small groups performances
and a cappella choir to string and percussion ensembles, the talent shown by
these students is amazing and keeps getting better.
This
show had the audience laughing and singing along, making it an enjoyable
afternoon for everyone involved. All in attendance were treated to a wonderful
assortment of desserts to enjoy as well as numerous unique auction items. It was
an exciting end to a magnificent event. The Spring Fling would not have been
possible without the dedication and commitment of the entire school community.
Thank
you to the students, teachers, staff and all volunteers who were involved in
this first-class production. Always remember: Students don't care how much you
know until they know how much you care.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of
Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate the Northeast Eagles who,
on March 6, edged past the St. John's Caps to win the Don Johnson Hockey League
Atom B crown.
Mr. Speaker, it was a very special win for the Eagles,
not only because it was the first time the team has won from the Northeast
Eagles Minor Hockey Association, the crown, but it was also winning in front of
their hometown fans, and a great crowd it was at the Jack Byrne Arena.
The Northeast Eagles consist of nine and 10 year old
children from Torbay, Flatrock, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, Pouch Cove and
Portugal Cove-St. Philips.
Members of the winning team were: Evan Adams, Cameron
Boland, Sam Chaulk, Ethan Fardy, Maria Groves, Alex Hickey, Drew Hudson, Olivia
King, Alexander Maynard, Lucas Mitchelmore, Ryan Mouland, Dawson Parsons, Owen
Parsons, Liam Rose, Nathan Ross, AJ Simms and Mark Youden. This wonderful group
was coached by Keith Maynard, Blair Boland and Ian Rose.
Mr. Speaker, the Eagles were already having a great
season. In January they won gold at the Canadian Hockey Enterprise tournament in
Montreal.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the
Northeast Eagles on a successful season and wishing the team good luck in their
upcoming provincial tournament in Harbour Grace this Easter.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
The incredible outdoor
heritage we all share in Newfoundland and Labrador is a source of both pride and
enjoyment for so many of our province's outdoor enthusiasts.
Mr.
Speaker, to ensure this common heritage is made even more accessible to us all,
our government has made a number of progressive changes to expand hunting
opportunities and benefits to even more Newfoundland and Labradorians.
By
lowering the hunting age from 18 to 16 for big game, and 16 to 12 for small
game, Mr. Speaker, we bring youth closer to the resource while they learn
valuable life and conservation lessons from adult mentors who accompany them in
the field. We've improved access to hunting for people with disabilities by
amending the designated hunter regulations. We adjusted the big game licence
draw so people can apply earlier.
I remind
everyone, Mr. Speaker, in this House and outside, that the deadline for
submitting big game licence draw applications is tomorrow, March 29, at 4:30
p.m. Eligible hunters are encouraged to return completed applications to the
department offices, or apply online, which provides immediate confirmation that
the application has been received and is the quickest way to apply.
Mr.
Speaker, we are on target to print and mail notices of successful applicants by
early May of this year.
We are
also ensuring big game harvests continue to be available to community groups.
This year, a letter from the executive of the community group in question will
be required before a licence will be issued. This ensures the integrity of each
application and increasing our focus on conversation.
The
2018-19 Hunting & Trapping Guide, Mr.
Speaker, is now available online and can be viewed on mobile devices. Details of
the changes and information on regulations and safe hunting practices are
available now with the click of a button.
Mr.
Speaker, being able to spend time outdoors – whether in solitude, or with family
and friends, passing on the enjoyment, the life skills of hunting and trapping
and sharing our common outdoor heritage, is very important to us all. I even
believe it's what defines us as who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The Official Opposition
agrees with the concepts and prerogatives put forth by your department. The
lowering of age, in particular, is a responsible manner that can be beneficial
to our province's youth, as hunting is an important aspect of our cultural
fabric.
As was
noted, it promotes valuable life and conservation lessons throughout our
society, but of course it must be done through appropriate mentorship and
guidance from experienced adults.
Mr.
Speaker, while these are positive moves, the minister can't lose focus on other
key parts of his department. Issues concerning our province's caribou herds need
immediate attention, as do concerning reports regarding lack of enforcement on
our province's rivers.
So I say
to the minister, great job, take a moment to pat yourself on the back, but do
not take too much time because there's much work to be done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It's great to see
youth and people with disabilities being given greater opportunities to embrace
our tradition of hunting, trapping and living off the land, particularly among
indigenous communities.
While
adult mentors are essential in teaching youth valuable life and conservation
lessons, government also has a role in ensuring all those who take part in this
tradition are educated and knowledgeable on the appropriate safety precautions.
I wish
all those taking part this year a safe and successful hunting season.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight initiatives undertaken
by the Department of Transportation and Works for increasing highway safety over
the winter season.
Earlier
this month, we expanded the Provincial Plow Tracker service to include all
depots on the Island part of the province and will continue to work to expand
this service to the Labrador region.
This
service has seen significant use this year and is a useful tool to help
motorists plan safer trips during the winter months.
In
recent weeks, we expanded our use of technology to help motorists make informed
decisions before travelling by adding two new highway cameras – one on the
Trans-Canada Highway at Whitbourne and another on Route 210 near Terrenceville –
for a total of 33 highway cameras motorists can now view online. We will be
adding an additional four cameras in the coming year.
This
year, we also introduced the province's first-ever tow plow on the Avalon
Peninsula – an innovative piece of equipment that plows and salts two lanes at
the same time. This is an initiative we will be expanding on for the next winter
season.
Mr.
Speaker, in Budget 2016, we announced
we would schedule overnight snow clearing shifts on nights when weather
conditions warranted it. Crews throughout the 13 routes were out overnight more
than 200 times this season. We also took advantage of mild temperatures during
the day to make road repairs that would otherwise not be possible in colder
temperatures.
Mr.
Speaker, even though winter has ended and spring is upon us, we encourage
motorists to continue to prepare for winter driving conditions, as we all know
too well that inclement weather can still lead to hazardous driving conditions
in Newfoundland and Labrador – even in April and May.
In
closing, Mr. Speaker, we should all commend the efforts of our more than 700
professionals who work at all hours and in severe conditions to keep our
provinces highways safe and clear.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and for the update on
the winter maintenance activities. Mr. Speaker, we are always pleased to hear
any practices of services that will improve road safety for the travelling
public in our province.
The plow
tracker is a useful tool and the additional highway cameras can be used
throughout the year to evaluate highway conditions. I was interested to hear the
snow clearing crews were out overnight more than 200 times this season. This
provides further evidence that your cuts to 24-hour snow clearing was an
ill-advised decision.
I look
forward now to the summer maintenance activities and seeing the many, many
potholes in our province disappear.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
It's good to see these new
initiatives. I'd be interested, however, in seeing numbers on how many are
accessing the online plow tracker service. I think it's a good service. I'd like
to know how many are using it.
I hope
the 200 overnight snow-clearing shifts were enough to keep our roads safe. That
doesn't tell me anything, Mr. Speaker. People often have no choice when they
have to travel the highways and they have to know that the roads are safe at all
times.
Most of
all, I commend the 700 professionals who do work night and day to keep motorists
safe, often under very trying conditions.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this hon. House to recognize the College of
the North Atlantic's leadership role in a new project through the federally
funded initiative, the Kenya Education for Employment Project.
The college's project is a partnership with two of Kenya's
national polytechnics, the Kebete Polytechnic Training College in Nairobi and
the North Eastern National Polytechnic in Garissa. Together they will help
create national competency-based occupational standards for Kenya in automotive
technology and industrial automation. The partnership will focus on developing
industry-approved training programs that prepare graduates for work in these
demand-driven sectors.
The college is engaging with industry in Newfoundland and
Labrador and Kenya to participate in the development of the new occupational
standards. For example, Lemur Monitors in Mount Pearl is an official partner and
has donated equipment.
I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues that Kenyan
officials will be visiting our province in May to learn more about the college's
facilities, training models, best practices and to experience our local culture.
This exciting project will enable the College of the North
Atlantic and local employers to make new connections in Kenya and assist in the
development of one of Africa's largest economies.
Please join me in congratulating the College of the North
Atlantic on its participation in the Kenya Education for Employment Project.
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. I would like to this opportunity to recognize the role the College of
the North Atlantic is playing in the Kenya Education for Employment Project. I'm
pleased to see the College of the North Atlantic is engaging with industry and
taking part in such initiatives. It is our hope that this will lead to greater
opportunities for the college system.
This side of the House welcomes the Kenyan officials who
will be arriving in May, and we all know they will be impressed with CNA and the
students.
I congratulate the college and its officials on their
participation in the Kenya Education for Employment Project.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the copy of his statement.
It's good to hear that the college is continuing to expand their work and
sharing their expertise with developing countries. It is also good to see the
college engaging private companies in the industry to participate by sharing
both equipment and expertise.
Making
new connections, whether in Kenya or any other place in the world, is good for
the college, local business either here or in a participating country, as well
as a rich and rewarding experience for the people involved.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in October, 2017 the new Finance Minister said that we need to fix the
spending problem. So I ask the Premier: Why does your
Budget 2018 forecast an increase in spending to $8.4 billion this
year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, we know the
Opposition's ability to do budgets; it got us a $2.7 billion deficit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
The reality, Mr. Speaker,
there's $140 million included in this year's budget which is fully, 100 per
cent, federally funded programs. If you take that out, there's $24 million for
inquiries, you take that out and the tens of millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker,
for CPI increases, I think we've done even better than holding spending stable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, the
federal government has increased spending right across the country; it's not
unique to Newfoundland and Labrador. It's something the federal government is
doing from coast to coast, Mr. Speaker. But
Budget 2018 indicates that the
province's spending of $8.4 billion will outpace revenues of $7.67 billion that
the province will take in, in 2018.
So I ask
the Premier to tell us how does this represent responsible, fiscal decisions
that benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, to
the Member opposite, first of all, I think if we go back nearly three years ago
in 2016 when we put in place what was a seven-year plan to get this province
back to surplus, we saw the former Minister of Finance, the current Minister of
Finance – Mr. Speaker, we are hitting all forecasts. As a matter of fact, we've
had to include some extra expense, one of which was as a result of the decision
of the former administration, upwards of $200 million in rate mitigation.
Today,
as I stand here and we talk about budgets, I'm talking about rate mitigation for
the largest tax, the Tory tax, in the history of this province, Mr. Speaker, and
this government will not be taking financial advice from the former
administration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, the Premier just said we're meeting all forecasts – not true, Mr.
Speaker, not true. Their own deficit for this year was forecast to be $778
million. It's increased now to $812 million.
So,
Premier, explain how that's meeting your forecast.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
it's been explained, and it was explained yesterday by the Minister of Finance,
Mr. Speaker. It's about severance. That was another factor we had to put into
our seven-year forecast to keep this province back to surplus. On top of that,
we gave back on auto insurance. There's some giving back to the people of our
province.
Mr.
Speaker, let's not forget, as the Minister of Finance just pointed out, what we
inherited was from the former administration a $2.7 billion looming deficit.
This government is meeting its targets. We are on forecast to return to surplus
in the next four years.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Another
misleading statement by the Premier who says their giving back on the auto
insurance. They're not doing anything with auto insurance this year. It doesn't
come into effect until next year, Mr. Speaker, and we see that in the budget.
The
Auditor General has agreed with the current Finance Minister and the previous
Finance minister who said that we have a spending problem.
So I ask
the Premier: Why did you allow the Departments of Service NL, Transportation and
Works, Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, Municipal Affairs, Finance and
others to surplus and increase their budgets this year? Two hundred million
dollars additional spending this year, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some of
that is related to CPI, of course. When you look at the Estimates and you look
at the expenses that we have within this year's budget, Mr. Speaker, part of it
is salaries. You've heard the Minister of Finance and others talk at length
about this. But we also procure – we actually buy things as well. So we are
keeping expenses in line. Not like we saw through the former administration who
saw ballooning – ballooning – expenses over their administration.
So again
I say, Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite are certainly not the ones to be giving
financial advice to this province. Their plan expects oil to be over $80 a
barrel this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
let's not forget the name on the door of the Premier's office is that man over
there, Mr. Speaker. Three years – three years – it's been his responsibility.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier opposite just said they're meeting all their forecasts.
Well, the minister's own economic policy document right here with all the
economic forecast, show that all of the economic indicators are going in the
wrong direction: housing starts, unemployment, disposable income and more, all
going in the wrong direction.
So I'll
ask the Premier: How can you say that that these decisions you're making benefit
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
this is how I say it, Mr. Speaker; this is exactly how I would say it. I'll
repeat the words of the former premier because it was in his economic indicators
back in 2015. It was the former premier that actually said the population in
this year would be 520,000 people, Mr. Speaker. I'll repeat the words of the
former premier. He said today, in 2018, the population would be 520,000 people.
Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to report, as the efforts of this government, the population
in this province is over 525,000 people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
So when he says that people
are leaving in droves, Mr. Speaker, he is wrong. It is what he predicted in
2015, it's not what's happening today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
What a
good piece of information to point out from the Premier because forecasts were
higher than they are since three years of Liberal government, Mr. Speaker,
because under their government now they predict 11,000 people are going to leave
Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that's the size of Gander, going to
leave our province since their watch, since he came into power.
I ask
the Premier this: What is in Budget 2018
that encourages Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially young
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, what's in the budget that encourages them to
stay here in this province right here?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Just a warning to everyone,
please. I will not tolerate interruptions when somebody has been identified to
speak – final warning.
The hon.
the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
can understand why the former premier would want to distance himself from his
own economic indicators that he put out in 2015 because they were a failure.
What they didn't include also was the looming impact of the Muskrat Falls
Project.
What we
have put in place, Mr. Speaker, and it's working, is
Our Way Forward. We introduced our vision in November 2016 making
key strategic investments in those areas of our province where we see creating
jobs is a priority for us.
They had
10 years to set this province up for success. They refused to do it by spending
the $25 billion that they had available to them. They invested in Muskrat Falls,
Mr. Speaker, thinking there was going to be a return to the people of our
province. In fact, what they were doing was digging deeper into the pockets of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For
three years, the government over there has been saying they have a spending
problem. They're refusing to deal with it. I wonder if that's a fiscal decision
or is it actually a political decision. Because
Budget 2016, let's not forget, put 300
fee and tax increases on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, 50 brand new fees,
Mr. Speaker. And guess what? Budget '17 kept those fees in place and budget '18
kept those fees in place.
We've
seen Budget 2016 for three years now,
Premier, what are you going to do for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to say to many seniors and people on low income in our province, there's $121
million, Mr. Speaker, in this year's budget for that.
Mr.
Speaker, there is some relief for auto insurance, but let's not forget – I would
be ashamed if I was the former premier as well. He mentioned already about the
name on the door. There's a reason why that name is not on the door.
I will
tell you now, Mr. Speaker, we are making provisions for the future of our
province. We put a plan in place. That plan is working. We are meeting our
targets to return this province back to surplus in seven years, taking into
account and cleaning up the mess that they have let for this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, household income
is dropping, real household income is dropping. Retail sales from now to 2021
are predicted to drop. Consumer price index is continuing to increase. Capital
investment is predicted to decrease. Housing starts will decease 10 per cent,
and then 10 per cent over the next couple of years and continue to decrease in
years to come. Those are all their own predictions, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier: How can you say that your plan and your workings are working for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? It's hurting them and driving them out of the
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
there's no doubt, the Leader of the Opposition will indeed like to twist some
words, but I'll repeat his words one more time because capital investment –
these were the words of the former premier in 2015, Mr. Speaker. He was saying
that capital investment in our province would be 8.465 and these are in the
millions of dollars, of course.
Well, in
actual fact, in 2018 this government has improved the capital investment up to
9.7. That's a big improvement to what this former premier said would happen in
2015. We are making improvements and setting this province up for a great
future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
Order,
please!
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, last year the
former Finance minister promoted a zero-based budgeting approach; yet, this year
there was not one mention of zero-based budgeting.
I ask
the minister: Have you abandoned the zero-based budgeting approach?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
No.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you for that detailed
answer.
The
Finance Minister said yesterday that he would continue to look for savings which
included reducing their discretionary spending.
How can
there still be discretionary spending when your previous Finance minister went
through the budget line by line to identify savings?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Agencies, boards and
commissions, I say to the Member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister said that the cost of severance for NAPE is $250 million; yet, the
budget handout only accounts for $89 million.
Minister, can you explain?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, the
answer to that is yes.
Mr.
Speaker, obviously, the Opposition doesn't know how to budget. They didn't know
how to budget when they were there. We got $2.7 billion in deficit that they
handed over to the people of the province, the gift that keeps on giving.
Mr.
Speaker, that's to account for the one to eight years which are dealt with in
this year's budget, the '17-'18 budget and the '18-'19 budget. The other amounts
were on the books as liabilities and are dealt with in a different way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
You had noted earlier that it was a one-time payout, now it's going to be
stretched over other fiscals. So that does have an impact on the bottom line
here in our debt levels.
Is there
money in the budget for a payout of severance to employees outside of NAPE, and
how much?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I guess we'll have a really in-depth debate when it comes to Estimates so that
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador get the real answers that they deserve.
The
minister said that the payout to NAPE will cost $250 million, the budget handout
says $89 million, the Budget Speech states $600 million and the Estimates book
read $359 million.
Minister, what is the real cost of the severance payout on the backs of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, the crowd
opposite obviously doesn't know the difference between liabilities and the
one-time cash payments.
The
one-time cash payments are the one to eight years which is what you see in last
year's budget $39 million, and this year's budget $52 million. The remainder of
the $600 million – that is included in the $600 million. The remainder of it is
on the books as liabilities and will be paid out over – the majority of it over
two years, 90 per cent.
I've
been very clear, including in the media, that we've given an option to people to
take it at a later date if they wish. We expect somewhere upwards to 10 per cent
of that, which is the 10 per cent will be over several years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
So I'm a bit confused. I'm good on numbers because I have an accounting
background and I was with the unions for a number of years. I'm a little bit
confused because a number of these collective agreements have not been
negotiated yet. So you haven't finalized the numbers here. You haven't outlined
exactly under which headings that this money is going to come out.
Can you
clarify exactly – are you going to impose the same ratification on the other
unions? And, if so, you must have an accounting number now to be able to say
exactly how much for each of these unions is going to be costed when it comes to
the severance payout.
Just a
quick clarification, it should be in the budget lines.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, we did include
severance payouts for all unions. We're not presupposing what those will be.
I find
it funny that the Member said he's good at numbers, he's good at accounting. Mr.
Speaker, that's the very Member that forgot to add to the bill, when he bought
two new ferries, a wharf in his own district, the very district he represents.
We got a boat and had to put it in dry dock while we built the wharf that he
forgot to build.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
So as the Minister of
Finance, this information wasn't in the budget documents and the analysis hasn't
been shared.
Can you
table the analysis on the breakdown exactly of the $600 million to the House of
Assembly, please?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, the $600 million
for all of severance includes everybody within the public service, with the
exception of Nalcor. It even includes Memorial University. That's for all public
servants, bargaining and non-bargaining.
The
amounts in last year's budget, the $39 million, was for the one to eight years,
including $52 million in this year's budget for the one to eight years; the
balance of the money is for the nine years and over, and that will be spread
primarily over this year's budget and next year's budget. We are keeping some
for the people who wish to take it at a later date, and that will be spread out
over several years, somewhere in the 10 per cent range.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on Monday the Natural Resources Minister directed the media to budget
day when asked about the future of Nalcor. The Premier later said that the
budget would contain language regarding what would take place; however, the
Budget Speech contains no details.
I ask
the minister: How much will it cost to separate Nalcor into multiple Crown
corporations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
the question.
When I
mentioned it on Monday, I said there would be language – the budget was coming
out the next day; certainly happy to answer any questions the Opposition or
anyone has about this idea, this process that we're going through now.
Mr.
Speaker, the oil and gas company within Nalcor, it has its own board of
directors. We are going to make that a stand-alone Crown corporation. That is
our intent; that's what we're working towards. It will take a legislative
change, Mr. Speaker. We think it's very valuable, considering the amount of work
that we've done on Advance 2030 and
making sure that we're really driving exploration to ensure that we have a good,
substantive growth in our oil and gas industry.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the
minister again: What's the cost to separate Nalcor into multiple corporations?
Surely, you must have done this estimate.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We don't
anticipate any costs. At this point, it's merely taking the organization as it
stands right now and taking it outside of the Nalcor corporation. It gives it
better transparency; it reports really back to the Department of Natural
Resources. It already is physically separated from the Nalcor entity, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm just
going to give a quote from Noia, the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association,
the executive director Charlene Johnson says: Having the oil and gas corporation
as a stand-alone Crown corporation with its own board of directors, mandate
policies and strategic focus that is solely focused on the oil and gas industry
is welcomed by Noia.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
recognize Noia has their position, but we don't represent Noia and no one here
represents Noia. We represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
And that's what our questions
are all about.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday there was some confusion. The minister said about it being a
new Crown corporation or report directly to the Department of Natural Resources.
Which is
it? Is it a separate Crown corporation or is it going to report directly to the
Department of Natural Resources?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, as I said
yesterday, this will be a Crown corporation. Currently, it is a subsidiary of
Nalcor. As we move through the process of legislative change, it will become its
own Crown corporation, not a subsidiary of Nalcor.
He's
asking how the people of the province feel. Let me talk about the St. John's
Board of Trade, the chair Andrea Stack. The St. John's Board of Trade supports
the establishment of a stand-alone entity to drive the
Advance 2030 plan. Having an entity dedicated to maximizing our oil
and gas reserves should help ensure we meet its full potential.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
past several years under Nalcor, this province has had record-breaking land
sales, the seismic program is certainly world class and the oil industry is one
of the economic leaders of the province, all under the oil and gas division of
Nalcor. Now the minister has stated the vision needs a rebrand.
I ask
the minister: What shortcomings now exist to require such a change?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, apparently he
didn't hear the quotes that I have just given to this hon. House of the people
who support this move, making it instead of being a subsidiary of Nalcor – and
Nalcor, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, is very focused on electricity and
finishing up the Muskrat Falls Project.
Now, we
have a new Advance 2030, which is an
aggressive program to drive development of our offshore oil and gas industry.
This is an opportunity to now have an oil and gas Crown corporation that will be
working steadily to ensure that we maximize the opportunity that we have in our
offshore oil and gas industry.
I'll
just also give another quote from the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers. They appreciate the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's
continued support and encouragement of a robust oil and natural gas industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
question was very simple. She's changing the operation of the oil and gas
division of Nalcor. Obviously there must be shortcomings with the current
operations. She can't tell us what it is and why the change is occurring.
Mr.
Speaker, in the past several years, as I said, the work that's been through the
oil and gas sector at Nalcor has been well respected for what it's achieved. So
the minister said she's changing, for some apparent reason, we don't know.
Again, we don't know the costs of the changes.
Could
she tell us what are the costs going to be? Why are you making the changes now?
Not that other organizations want it. You're the government. You're making the
change. Why are you making the change?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
At the risk of repeating
myself, Mr. Speaker, we're not expecting any costs involved in this change at
all. We all know in this room, and I'll inform the people of the province that
the oil and gas division of Nalcor is not even in the Nalcor building. They have
their own stand-alone facilities.
So that
transition has already occurred. They are outside of the premises of Nalcor.
They have their own board of directors. What we are doing here is really
focusing on the exploration opportunities that we have in this province. We've
made an aggressive plan that says we're going to have over 100 exploration wells
in the next decade, and we want to double our production offshore Newfoundland
and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, can the minister confirm that it's your government's intention to
direct that revenue collected from the new carbon tax will go to rate mitigation
of electricity rates?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for the question. But before I get into the question, you're going to
have to help me here, Mr. Speaker. The Member put a private Member's motion
forth, and he put out a statement after which is absolutely, categorically
false. I can't say certain words about it, but I'll just read it.
The
Opposition critic for Environment said the Ball Liberals voted to reject a PC
motion to relieve Newfoundland and Labrador of any obligation to pay a carbon
tax, considering the significant investment in hydro in Muskrat Falls.
That is
absolutely, categorically false. This is a federal program. The federals said
here's what you have to do. So for the Member to put that out there in the
public is irresponsible, it's false, it's not true, and if he wants to have a
discussion on carbon tax, we should sit down with the facts –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
– not with this type of
information that's put out, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to clarify to the minister, all we've ever asked over here is stand up for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
That's you who were elected,
not federally. You're elected to represent the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador on taxes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, people were
expecting to hear details on your new tax, the Liberal carbon tax in yesterday's
budget. Instead, we're told the details would be made public this spring. Your
carbon tax is coming, and you weren't open and transparent.
Why
weren't the details of this new tax included in the budget?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I have to finish
on with the statement that he made, the false information that was put out in
the public.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
To make matters worse, they
voted in favour of giving Ottawa the authority to oppose a carbon pricing. Mr.
Speaker, Ottawa has the authority. So for the Member to make those statements in
public about carbon tax when he has no idea what's he's talking about, it's
irresponsible.
We said
in the budget, the Premier said and I said that the carbon pricing plan will be
put out this spring. And, Mr. Speaker, it will be put out this spring so
everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will see it, as we
committed. It will be done this spring but it won't be on these irresponsible,
false statements that have been put out by the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
For the
third year in a row government has cut Memorial University's operating grant
just before a major study of public post-secondary institutions is slated to
begin.
I ask
the Premier: Why is his government arbitrarily slashing Memorial's budget
without even waiting for evidence from the study indicating what the needs are?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for the question. Certainly, we as a government have made significant
commitment to our post-secondary institutions within this province. We have and
we continue to do that.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the things we've had to do is work with under a very, very
challenging fiscal situation. We have not only core government; we have worked
with our ABCs, Memorial University, the College of the North Atlantic.
One of
the things we have maintained, Mr. Speaker, is that we make sure we have an
affordable, accessible education for Newfoundland and Labrador students. We will
continue to do that, and we have made a commitment to that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
At a
time when government should be investing in public post-secondary institutions
to revitalize our economy we see more cuts to these institutions, some
commitment threatening their facilities and programs. I'm not sure how these
cuts qualify as building for the future or showing commitments.
I ask
the Premier: Will the study be just another way to continue cutting
post-secondary education?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure for the Members opposite to be on that side and talk about
spending money. Obviously, I know the Third Party haven't had an opportunity to
do that yet, but we know what's happened in the Official Opposition.
Mr.
Speaker, if the Member would drive along by Prince Philip Drive you'll see a
significant infrastructure investment within Memorial University – significant
investment.
Mr.
Speaker, we have made a strong commitment. We have just gone through the
Premier's Task Force for kindergarten to grade 12. I think there are 82
recommendations that we are now implementing. We have put a significant amount
of money into the budget to implement some of those recommendations.
The
studies, Mr. Speaker, will be the same. We are going to be looking at our
post-secondary institutions to make sure we have a future for our young people.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Minister of Finance has said he applied a gender analysis to this year's budget.
I ask
the minister: Will he please table the specific gender analysis tool he used,
who did the analysis and the reports on the results of the analysis that was
done in both preparing the budget and in reviewing it before it was brought
forward?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Women's Policy Office has been very engaged. I thank the Minister of Finance and
Treasury Board for ensuring what I'm going to call a very engaged process with
the Women's Policy Office to review all the decisions within the budget. I will
table, for the Member opposite, the Integrated Approach to Policy/Program
Development: Guidelines for Gender Inclusive Analysis. This is by the Women's
Policy Office. It will describe the process.
Mr.
Speaker, also we use an awful lot of the federal criteria that is used by the
Status of Women Canada. As we evolve in ensuring this gender lens on the budget,
I'm sure there will be improvements, but I'm happy to table this to ensure that
the Member opposite is fully informed.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's not
just about doing an analysis after the budget is done. It's in preparing the
budget, and there are specific reports that result from that process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I would like the
minister to table the reports from both the preparation of the budget and also
analysis after the budget.
I ask
the minister: What did his gender analysis say about implementing pay equity,
because it is not in the budget?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister Responsible for
the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Ensuring
we have a gender lens on everything we do in this government, I have to commend
my colleagues sitting here around me because I know they have really sought to
ensure that did take place, not only last year but again this year. This has
been the second year and we are improving our processes all the time.
You've
heard in the Speech from the Throne how dedicated this government is to ensuring
gender equity. You've heard it now in the budget. There were a lot of
announcements in yesterday's budget.
As I
said, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to disclose and to table the report, an integrated
approach to how the gender inclusive analysis was done and we'll continue to do
so.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for Question Period has
ended, I'm sorry.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports
by Standing and Select Committees
MR. SPEAKER:
Pursuant to section 8 and
section 10 of the Public Tender Act, I
hereby table reports of the Public Tender Act Exceptions for November and
December 2017 and January 2018 as presented by the Chief Operating Officer of
the Government Purchasing Agency.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, as I said in
Question Period, I'm happy to table An Integrated Approach to Policy/ Program
Development: Guidelines for Gender Inclusive Analysis from the Women's Policy
Office.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Schools
Act, 1997, Bill 10.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS opioid addiction is a very serious problem
affecting many individuals and families in our province, and the Bell Island
area is no exception; and
WHEREAS the effects of this problem have implications that
negatively impact many people, old and young; and
WHEREAS support and treatment programs have been proven to
break the cycle of addiction and have helped many into recovery;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray
and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to establish a
Suboxone-methadone treatment plan for Bell Island, which would include a drug
addictions counsellor at the hospital and a drug awareness program in the local
schools.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I've had a change to present this earlier this
week and I want to continue doing this because I want to bring to light the
importance and the seriousness of the opioid crisis that we have here.
I know
it's not lost on deaf ears in this House because we had a very intensive debate
over the last two sittings about the opioid crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador
and the effect that it has – and it has nothing to do with age, it has nothing
to do with geographic makeups, it has nothing to do with islands versus isolated
versus urban versus rural communities. It has to do with our ability to provide
services and supports to ensure that we address this issue and give people an
opportunity to get control of their lives again, give them an opportunity to be
productive citizens in their communities and give them an opportunity for their
families to come together again in a supportive mechanism as a community and as
a unit to address the needs here.
We all
know the impact it has on our economy. When people are not productive because
there are health issues, particularly in this case because there's an addiction
issue, that has an impact on all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
So
what's being proposed here is that – unfortunately, on Bell Island there seems
to be more than the average addictions issues around opioids. We're obviously
all trying to look at what are the causes of that, particularly to alleviate it
increasing, but also what we're trying to do is find solutions to those who
already have opioid addictions issue.
There
are two particular groups over there. I give credit to the community for taking
the lead on this. Unity in Community is one organization that has started to
bring together a number of professionals who talk about how we address this and
bring those who are fighting addictions, those who are presently recovering from
it and those who have recovered and are now, as the mentors, to try and move
things forward.
There is
also another community group called Heal Bell Island, which is about trying to
bring the community and the supports there and find new mechanisms to include
people of all different areas and backgrounds when it comes to the opioid issues
to address that. I've had some conversations with the minister. The minister is
very aware of it and very supportive of trying to find a mechanism and is open
to having some discussions about how we address that.
So I
want it on record that the community has come together. I'm going to keep
fighting for it and hopefully we'll find a solution with the support of the
government and the Minister of Health.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services for a response, please.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Indeed,
the Member opposite and I had a corridor consult, in medical terms, before we
came to the House and he has, as he's said, brought this to the House before. I
think I would commend the community and both groups for their initiative in what
is a very successful approach in other areas.
There is
support for Bell Island. The department funds SWAP and that is a source, for
example, of the needle exchange. I would offer him the fact that we are working
on service redesign through the Towards
Recovery implementation plan, and the location of those services is
obviously a key discussion going forward.
My
challenge in terms of ultimate access is around prescribers for
opioid-dependence treatment. I have 21 in the province, compared with 1,300
physicians who prescribe opiates on a regular basis. So I would offer that. We
have actually opened up some new telephone codes for Telehealth consultations
for addiction services as well.
It's on
our radar too, and I'd be happy to engage with the Member opposite and, indeed,
any of the Members of this House who feel they have specific community needs.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I will
now call on the Member for Windsor Lake to introduce the resolution standing in
her name.
The hon.
the Member for Windsor Lake.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to take a moment to thank those women and men who are home today viewing the
debate this afternoon. I've received numerous messages indicating that – even
most recently from a young mother who is home watching the debate this afternoon
with her three children. I also want to thank the organizations that have shown
up here in the House of Assembly and the individuals who have shown up here
today for this important private Member's resolution.
I also
want to say a sincere thank you to the hundreds of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in the last 18 hours who have sent email messages from all over the
province, from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, St. Anthony, Port aux Basques, Placentia,
Central Newfoundland and the East Coast, indicating their stories and their
support.
Mr.
Speaker, we're here today to have a conversation about the importance of –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Could I
ask the Member, please, to issue a motion?
MS. C. BENNETT:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MS. C. BENNETT:
I'm going to make the motion
that:
WHEREAS sexual harassment is a common occurrence in the
workplace throughout Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS women of the province and all people deserve to
work in a safe environment, free from harassment and sexual harassment; and
WHEREAS there are several pieces of legislation that govern
safety in the workplace in Newfoundland and Labrador, including the Labour
Relations Act, Labour Standards Act and the Occupational Health
and Safety Act; and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador legislation currently does not reflect societal
expectations of harassment-free workplaces;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the newly strengthened and
modernized workplace harassment policy introduced by the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador and urges government to show even more leadership by
making legislative changes to these and other pieces of legislation to ensure
women and others are protected in all workplaces in Newfoundland and Labrador
from harassment and sexual harassment.
Seconding that motion, Mr. Speaker, is the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de
Grave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Windsor Lake.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, she sat hidden under her desk unable to move, forcing herself not to
move. If he saw her there, he would come in and it would begin again. Later, he
showed up at her home. She hid behind the dark window, with the lights off, so
he'd go away.
She
looked in a mirror of the staff washroom, stealing herself for another night of
groping at the local pub. The tips were good, so she needed to stay. If she had
a choice, she'd leave.
He had
only recently confided in friends that he was gay. He never expected that his
personal information would be shared with the warehouse guys, so he was shocked
when one of the guys grabbed his ass and asked if he liked it.
She
worked hard to achieve her apprenticeship ticket. Long hours, juggling being a
single mom, classes, on-the-job training. And one day on the floor, she was
cornered by a man that she had the opportunity to garner favour with, the shop
steward, right now, as he proceeded to try and fondle her breast.
She had
refused to co-operate with his plan, so he made sure he gossiped about her,
spread rumours about her, and tried to ruin her reputation and her career. She
silently persevered, surviving the emotional abuse from the bully.
Mr.
Speaker, these five quick stories are examples that I've heard and I'm sure
Members of this House have heard in relation to sexual harassment in the
workplace.
The
Webster's Dictionary defines harassment as uninvited and unwelcomed verbal or
physical behaviour of a sexual nature, especially by a person in authority
toward a subordinate. And it defines harassment as to create an unpleasant or
hostile situation for another person, especially by uninvited and unwelcomed
verbal or physical conduct.
Mr.
Speaker, sexual harassed individuals, be they women or others, have to deal with
the guilt around the situation for a number of reasons and, in spite feeling
bullied, they may still feel that they are the ones who initiated those insults
through the language they use or the way they dress. And the worst part is their
fear of telling the problem to their partners, family or friends, in judgment
and the possibility of losing their jobs.
We know,
Mr. Speaker, that workplace culture, unchecked, has a huge impact on whether
harassment, whether bullying and, most importantly, whether sexual harassment is
allowed to happen. If leadership doesn't set the tone and allows harassment to
happen, there is a cascade effect throughout the organization.
Mr.
Speaker, tension, anger, fear, frustrations build up and lead to physical,
mental and emotional problems. An Angus Reid report on February 9, 2018 on
sexual harassment in the workplace talked about 52 per cent of Canadian women
say they've been subject to sexual harassment alone in the workplace, and 28 per
cent of Canadian women say they've been subject to non-consensual sexual
touching in the workplace.
Young
women tend to be among the strongest voices for change, while men in the same
age group are more permissive in their views about what is and isn't acceptable
in the workplace. Older men, who see many of those being accused in their peer
group, tend to say social norms are changing too quickly, making it hard to know
where to draw the line on behaviour. That said, they're also more likely to
express views in line with women on a number of matrixes surrounding sexual
harassment.
A CRA
poll of adults in Newfoundland and Labrador reports that one in 10 women in the
province have experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime. I'd find it
ironic if I didn't point out that of the 10 female Members of this House,
statistically, one of these Members has been subject to sexual harassment, if
that poll information is correct.
Twenty-three per cent of adult Newfoundland and Labrador people reported to
being sexually harassed and that harassment has been experienced within the last
five years. One in seven having most recently experienced such an incident five
years ago or more.
There's
a reason why we need to change the laws, and it's quite simple. Harassment,
sexual harassment, bullying in the workplace creates a pervasively hostile work
environment that can impact employees. Harassment, sexual or otherwise, is an
abuse of power and when someone in power has the ability to influence your
career opportunities and bullies or threatens another person, that can lead to
mental health issues, physical health issues, emotional challenges and career
impacts.
If we
look at the specific impacts like mental health, psychologists note that sexual
harassment and harassment can lead to many common disorders: depression, anxiety
and even post-traumatic stress disorder. It can trigger systems of depression
and anxiety that are new to a person, and it can exacerbate a previous condition
that may have been controlled or resolved.
Some
research has found that sexual harassment early in one's career, in particular,
can lead to long-term depressive symptoms and can even lead to suicide. Groups
of employees have been known to turn on the victims and making the conditions
further unbearable.
Victims
of harassment, sexual harassment in particular, often report weight loss, or
weight gain, loss of appetite, headaches, nausea and when the physical effects
of sexual harassment manifest in a workplace, there is a cause for serious loss
of productivity.
Emotional health: The harassment's effect on an individual can range from simple
irritation to extreme depression. Those who are subject to these types of
behaviours often have the tendency to lose their self-esteem and morale, and as
a result they are frequently disruptive and not able to concentrate fully on
their tasks.
Inconsistent time keeping, absenteeism, lack of commitment, low performance, all
of these things can lead to the potential of a woman, or another person who is
experiencing harassment, sexual harassment, to resign; all of that impacting the
organizations performance and effectiveness.
And
let's not forget the career impacts, including the financial repercussions and
the employment decisions. This can include potentially being fired or not hired,
being passed over for promotions, receiving lower wages and being assigned to
the worst shifts or duties than your other co-workers.
If there
have been no adverse employment decisions, then the pattern of sexual harassment
may be so frequent and severe that it creates a hostile work environment,
creating the desire or need to transfer or quit a position as a result of the
harassment, sometimes lowering individuals earning potential and being
ostracized in your workplace as a result of the harassment, because we know that
situations like bystander effects are known to happen in workplaces.
Mr.
Speaker, several provinces in Canada, Alberta and Ontario just as two examples,
have added to their legislative framework for occupational health and safety
policies, procedures, standards, expectations that make our workplaces safer not
only for women, but for everyone who works in the workplaces throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, occupational health and safety
laws around the world have identified workplace harassment as being a core
physio-social hazard.
Mr.
Speaker, I recognize that we have a number of laws both provincially and
federally that can and do provide a level of safety or rebuke for women and
others who experience harassment, whether it's the Human Rights Code, whether
it's the Criminal Code of Canada, but
I think we can do better in our province. I think when we hear about the global
movement of MeToo and TIME'S UP, we can address the laws of Newfoundland and
Labrador to become more progressive so that harassment, sexual harassment and
bullying in the workplace becomes a thing of the past.
We have
women in our province who, for decades and decades and decades, survived in
workplaces because the expectations societally was different than it is today.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House, I believe this government, I believe
this province wants the laws of our land to reflect the societal norms that are
now known and well known, not just in our province but in our country and around
the world.
There
needs to be accountability for the safety of women and others in the workplace,
with clear outcomes for those who fail to provide that safe place. We need
policies that must work in the workplace, such as tools and things to address
and overcome the bystander effect, which is the social-psychological phenomena
in which individuals are less likely to offer help to victims.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the Premier and my caucus colleagues for supporting me
in bringing forward this private Member's resolution today and I look forward to
the debate this afternoon. I look forward to a very positive outcome on a cold
and dreary Wednesday afternoon.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the Member, my hon. colleague from the District of Windsor Lake, for
bringing this very important motion before the House here today. It's certainly
a pleasure to participate in this debate on addressing and preventing harassment
in the workplace.
Harassment, bullying, intimidation, unwanted advances, stalking, inappropriate
talk and behaviour, posters, pictures, paraphernalia, all of these describe
situations in which Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had to work and endure
abuse over the years. Some of those settings have been within the government
itself, but the problem also exists in the private sector and elsewhere:
offices, boardrooms, work sites, classrooms, hospitals and locker rooms,
sometimes in private, sometimes in the full view of others.
In
recent decades, people have become more aware of what constitutes harassment and
inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, but, unfortunately, awareness alone
has not done enough to stop it. Some seem oblivious, some seem like they just
don't care, some may be in denial or even unaware that they are crossing a line.
The
MeToo movement has gripped the public consciousness in recent months and it's an
opportunity to say time's up, forget the excuses, let's end this once and for
all. There are many things we can do, Mr. Speaker, to end harassment: education,
role modelling and effective parenting are among them, but to truly put an end
to harassment we need legislation with teeth that will impose a penalty for this
kind of behaviour and violence.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it's not enough just to have that legislation for government
departments. I think that's grossly insufficient in today's day and age. We need
to protect all citizens, male, female, youth, seniors. Everyone deserves
protection. To this end, I think all of our acts need to be amended to protect
people who are working in the private and not-for-profit sectors as well.
It was a
very moving speech by my colleague from Windsor Lake. I think everyone could
feel the goosebumps as she started revealing some of the stories that she shared
with us. Unwanted advances are violent. They are not fun, they are not amusing.
They are abusive.
It's not
an excuse to say women are new to the workforce. Women took to the workforce en
masse during the Second World War, if not before, and that was a very long time
ago. In the province's fish plants decades ago women dominated the field and set
the pace. In banks and classrooms, clinics and restaurants, hotels and stores,
women were busy working decades ago doing their part to buoy up our economy and
make their own families ends meet. That See Change was happening before many of
us were even born but other See Changes didn't happen so quickly. Parity of pay
is one, for example, that has been a long time coming and we're still not there
yet.
Equal
roles at the senior levels of the workplace have been a long time coming. In so
many workplaces basic respect, dignity and safety have been a long time coming,
or haven't occurred at all. We've all seen the old stereotype portrayed where
women walking past a construction site are whistled at or catcalled. These days,
women are working on those construction sites and in many other professions
dominated by men.
There
are many women in uniform, all sorts of uniforms: military, police, firefighters
and so on. Sadly, we've heard stories of women in uniform, just as in other
workplaces, being subjected to behaviour that is unacceptable and sometimes even
criminal. We need to deal appropriately with those instances when they occur and
preventatively before they occur.
We also
need to recognize that just because a behaviour doesn't violate the Criminal
Code, means that the behaviour is acceptable or tolerable. People should not be
breathing a sigh of relief when they find out they don't face criminal charges.
They need to be held to account when they harass others. We can no longer let it
slide because if we do then we all slide as a society and the next generations
slide right along with us.
The
level of hatred and vitriol in the public sphere in recent months has been
appalling. Things are being spoken and written on social media that are beyond
disgraceful. I've many times looked at Facebook and thought, what's happening to
our world? If we let this go on without trying to halt it, this is all going to
end very badly. This is our moment as a society to turn the page. We can do that
by instituting laws that change the nature of all workplaces to impose
parameters that people cannot cross without consequences.
That may
sound scary to some, Mr. Speaker. They fear that their rights and freedoms will
be whittled away, but think of how scary it is to be that vulnerable person
subjected to harassment in the workplace. Think about being that person who has
to hide under the desk. Think about that person who dreads coming to work in the
morning because they don't know what kind of insults are going to be hurled at
them during the day.
Some
people can let everything roll off them, like water off a duck's back, and they
may have learned not to let bad behaviour bother them. Some people and others
will argue: Gee, everyone ought to grow a thicker skin, just put up with it –
but I disagree. The solution is not to train everyone to suck it up; the
solution is to stop the hurtful behaviour in its tracks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Let's raise the standards of
what is acceptable in the public sphere. And why should we do that? One reason
is that some individuals are not in a position to sidestep the violence that
comes their way. Some are levelled by it, flattened, destroyed, annihilated.
Some are driven to suicide. That makes the harassing behaviour tantamount to
murder.
Not all
of those subjected to violence are women. Some are men, some are children and
teens. Some are persons with disabilities of one sort or another. Some are
indigenous. Some are new Canadians or from ethnic minorities. Some are LGBTQ.
Some are picked on because of their physical appearance or because of their age,
but many, many, many of those harassed in the workplace are women, and women are
leading the charge to change things.
It's
been a long, long wait. We were told that things would change long before now,
but enough waiting, enough putting up with bad behaviour and waiting for people
to grow tired of behaving that way. Because some people will never learn on
their own, and new generations will come along repeating whatever bad behaviour
they think they can get away with. Some people even celebrate that kind of
behaviour and call it locker-room talk, but it's time for society to grow up.
Statistics for harassment in the workplace are hard to pin down, but surveys
show the number of people who have experienced harassment in the workplace are
very, very high and, as my colleague stated, one in 10 women is the statistic
for Newfoundland and Labrador.
We're at
a point now where hard and fast statistics should not be what requires us to be
motivated to act. We should know enough, we should be angry enough about what
women and vulnerable persons have been subjected to that we're ready to act, and
now is the time to do it.
The
problem is still going on, it's still taking victims and it's still prevalent
enough that all of us in this room, probably, can put many faces to real-life
stories. We could fill today's sitting just with the stories that have been
circulating in our own communities in recent months. It's time to find
solutions that will work.
The solutions we are talking about are founded on
procedural fairness. There's a definition of procedural fairness in the
province's Harassment and Discrimination-Free Workplace Policy. It “includes the
right to be heard, the right to be treated without bias, the right to be
informed of the allegations being made and to be provided with an opportunity to
respond to them ….” The law may have served people poorly at times in the past,
but the route of due process is infinitely preferable to a route that lacks
procedural fairness.
So the way to make due process work better is to change the
rules and practices at all workplaces so that bad behaviour has fewer shadows in
which it can hide. Once we accept that harassment is indeed intolerable, we
cannot allow those dark, shadowy places to linger in our workplaces. People in
all workplaces need to be educated and motivated to stand by one another in
defiance of harassing behaviour and attitudes.
One method is to put a human face on the word: harassment.
People can be led to empathize with those who are affected by harassment.
Because what if it were someone you loved? What if it was your daughter, your
wife, your mother? What if it was you but you were unable to fight back?
People can be taught how to shift their perspectives and
walk in the shoes of another person. They can learn to check their behaviour and
set higher standards for themselves. People can grow and leave their bad
behaviour behind. And they don't lose anything in the process – they gain. And
all of us gain. In this way, the laws we create would not just be punitive, they
would also be rehabilitative.
Mr.
Speaker, the province's Harassment and Discrimination-Free Workplace Policy is
outlined on the website. It lists the obligations of employers and managers with
respect to workplace behaviour. I'm very pleased that we're going to be bringing
in some legislation that's going to strengthen policy because policy is not
always as enforceable as legislation, and give it some teeth so that victims
have a better opportunity to find real solutions.
I will
repeat the words of my hon. colleague from Windsor Lake: We need to do more. We
need to extend this legislation, beyond just government department, to all
workplaces. I, myself, have worked in the private sector. I've worked in the
public sector, the not-for-profit sector and in the House of Assembly. In each
of these occupations, I can relate experiences of things that happen in the
workplace that were unsettling.
I think
I can honestly say, in all of those professions, I was not one bit prepared for
the House of Assembly which, in and of itself, is one of the most unique
workplaces I have ever been in. Here in the House of Assembly we should lead by
example and we have a ways to go here as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, some of the
definitions that are outlined in this policy statement include: “Abuse of
Authority – a form of harassment which occurs when a person, usually a
supervisor or a manager, uses his/her authority in a manner which serves no
legitimate work purpose.” It misuses their power for the purpose of intimidating
or demeaning an individual.
Bullying
is “a form of harassment which often consists of actions or verbal comments that
are intended to intimidate, offend, or humiliate a particular person or group of people.”
Discrimination is “the refusal to employ or continue to
employ, or to intentionally or unintentionally deny a right, benefit or
opportunity on the basis of an actual or perceived prohibited ground of
discrimination ….”
“Harassment
– comments or conduct which are abusive, offensive, demeaning or vexatious that
are known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. Harassment may be
intended or unintended.”
Sexual harassment
is the “unwanted and unwelcomed behaviour of a sexual nature.”
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to run out of time and I have so
much left that I want to talk about, but I will end on this note, I think it's
important we address all aspects: bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. It
starts in the early stages as bullying and harassment and, if unchecked, that
individual or perpetrator can
grow into more violence and eventually become a sexual harasser.
I think
it's crucial that we all support this motion here in this hon. House today. I
think that it's crucial that we extend the legislation to all workforces and all
workplaces in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and I know that myself
and all my colleagues will be happy to stand in support of your motion here
today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, thank you to both hon. colleagues from
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune and to the Member for Windsor Lake for bringing this
motion forward. I think it's safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is an
uncomfortable conversation to have, but it's time that we start having these
conversations and it's time that there's change brought about. I'm happy to
second this motion today.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and thank – we
have a public gallery full of strong, supportive women who have come here today
to be a part of this conversation and to witness this conversation –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Of
course, it means a lot that those women are here today.
Mr. Speaker, I want to share a personal story of my
own. As we look around, my hon. colleague referenced the number of women that we
have here in our Legislature, and I'm going to share a story of mine when I
first decided to run for public office. I notice up in the gallery that we also
have women who have ran for public office.
Number one, for women to put themselves forward, it's
not as common – it's becoming more common now thankfully; we need to see more of
this. But to get past that, to actually make that decision, for some women
that's a really big decision, first and foremost, I will say that. That's a
hurdle right there in itself.
It's been a lifelong dream of mine to run for office
and I'm so happy I've decided to do so. I remember it started off with a
nomination process. We've all been through it here, of course. I'm making
reference to a male supporter, a man who was much older than me, who will remain
nameless. I won't identify, obviously, but it started off a supporter of mine.
At that time when you're running, no matter if you're a woman or if you're a
man, of course you want all the good, genuine support that you can get while
running for politics.
That
was fine, that this supporter was supportive verbally in the community.
However, I will mention that this man, this gentleman does not live in my
district. It's not a constituent of mine. As time went on, and it was a long
process through that nomination process for the district of – it was Port de
Grave and then
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, and I had successfully
secured the nomination.
I noticed the change in behaviour, from this particular
supporter at the time, became very possessive and even mean. The language
started to change. I had a voicemail, of course, on my personal phone and that
voicemail would be filled up on the hour of unwelcomed messages – sometimes
positive, sometimes were threatening – and it became very stressful.
You can imagine a young woman running for politics for
the very first time. When you're running for politics, as you know, you want to
portray the best image of yourself. You want your credentials and your
experiences – you're out there and you know any kind of information can be quite
damaging, and it's fearful to any candidate to be threatened.
At this time it was scary, I will say. I had to bring
in my campaign team on this and say this is what's happening to me. The
voicemails – I ended up having to remove my voicemail from my phone, Mr.
Speaker. I contacted my cellphone provider. This person's number was blocked
from my phone, but there was no way to stop this person from accessing the
voicemail. It would fill up literally on the hour. No one else could leave a
voicemail on my phone. It was very distracting.
You're out there in a political campaign. You want to
knock on every door you can. You want to reach every constituent that you can.
People have questions, you want to be accessible for the public. Your time is
dedicated to this work. Of course, with the voicemail that was a challenge. So,
like I say, I ended up having to remove the voicemail. To this very day, my
personal phone does not have a voicemail for that purpose.
That was very frustrating and stressful, but I had to
bring my team in. My campaign manager contacted this individual and said it's
best that you stay away. Stay away from the office, or you can't do this to Pam.
You have to respect her wishes.
I will say, Mr. Speaker, I've done nothing wrong. There
was nothing I have done to invite this behaviour. There was never any action on
my part that would cause this behaviour, but this person would take
responsibility for the success that I was experiencing
and saying: Oh, she got
elected, she got that because of me. I went around, I called into the
Open Line shows and I spoke highly. Now she won't have anything to
do with me.
Well, I
ask every one of you, picture how that must feel. So I did my best to ignore it.
My parents and my family were also involved in my campaign. You can imagine my
mother, how she was concerned.
The
voicemails then changed to not just threatening to go on an
Open Line show to damage me or to say
something about me, and I'm sure some of my other colleagues can actually relate
to this, but they then changed to: I know who's coming to your house. I can see
who you're associating with.
It came
to a point, you don't want this to get out. That's a big fear, like I say, when
you're running for political office, but it came to the point eventually when I
finally became – this had been going on for a course of two to three years
during the election.
This
man, despite being asked to stay away, came to the campaign headquarters when he
felt like it, walked on in. Not just assaulted or offended me, but members of my
team, volunteers. As we all know, at this point in time it's a workplace, but
it's a volunteer. It starts off as a volunteer basis, and the people who come to
help you are volunteers.
One lady
in particular on my campaign team also received some bad behaviour from this
individual. This individual had gone around the community saying slanderous
things and horrible things, embarrassing things that were fiction.
So,
eventually, I had to involve the RCMP on this, Mr. Speaker. The police had told
me this person knows how to do enough, but not enough to be arrested or to
commit what is considered a crime. They said, why don't you go and file a peace
bond.
Myself,
as a former journalist, and I had been assigned to cover many court cases over
my career as a journalist. If you were to go and apply for such a court
document, a peace bond of any type, your name gets on a public docket. It's
public. I believe it's available online and it's certainly available in the
dockets in the courts.
Let me
ask you, Mr. Speaker, what candidate wants to see their name on a public docket
while running for office, even though, in this case, a victim? It's not
something you want to get out there and something that could be used against
you. So it's kind of a rock in a hard place. I often wondered, and it's been
asked of me, do you think this man would be doing this to you if you were a
male? I didn't have the answers but it's quite stressful, and it happens too
often.
So at
this point in time, again, members of my campaign team had to step in and
actually meet with the individual and say you've got to stop. Also, my father
has a business in the district in Bay Roberts. This individual would also stop
by my father's place of business, his office, to give his opinion and to make
comments. Until one day, finally, my father said you have to leave and don't
come back. I also will say that this individual visited my parent's residence
and left a note in the door.
We hear
these stories – and I'm sure every one of us can relate in here. Again, I want
to highlight and acknowledge the statistics are higher for women and what we
experience but it's important to note that men, our male colleagues also
experience incidents of harassment, sexual assault.
I'm glad
to see that this legislation will be brought forward. I'm very happy our Premier
is supporting this, of course. Of course, the Member – again, it's a very
uncomfortable topic to bring up and to discuss, but you know what? Thank God
it's happening now, Mr. Speaker. It's not just happening here in Newfoundland
and Labrador, it's happening across the world.
Look no
further, of course, as I mentioned before the Oscars. We see leaders, women in
strong leadership roles in Hollywood starting the MeToo campaign, and it's
happening everywhere. It's time for change.
I'll
also make some reference as I did before to a popular song, a favourite song of
mine, “Goodbye Earl” by the Dixie Chicks. A very popular tune, a fun song to
sing, a great melody, but “Goodbye Earl”
Earl had to die. It talks about how a young girl out of high school gets
married, shortly after marriage she starts experiencing physical abuse and her
friend flies in – well, the rest of the song is history, but those lyrics come
from somewhere. They're real stories.
As a
journalist, of course, I've covered many stories and witnessed many situations
of assault and abuse and whatnot. I've had many stories – I'll share a story now
of a friend who came to me working in a workplace and things were going well.
The boss came to her one time and invited her out on a date or suggested they
get closer. She didn't – I guess wasn't interested, and shortly after she was
placed on probation. I guess she inquired about it, and the reason being: you're
not a team player; you're not very enthusiastic; we're not seeing you be a team
player.
So these
are the sorts of things that can happen. They can fly under the radar. They're
hard to identify, as our other hon. colleague mentioned, but it's time. I'm
happy to see legislation is being modified to reflect and to identify these
things and to nip them in the bud as they are happening. The onus is on each and
every one of us here as bystanders, as colleagues. If we see it, let's call it
out. Let's not be afraid. This legislation will protect those who come forward.
Just
think about it, would you want your son or daughter to experience any of this? I
tell you it was very stressful for me, what I experienced on my campaign, but it
broke my heart to know what it was also doing to my mother. She took that to
heart, Mr. Speaker. She saw her daughter going through what I was going through.
And I will say it's currently, unfortunately, to a degree ongoing. I guess I
will have to decide going forward on how I want to handle this. As a last
resort, you want to bring in the law. You don't want to see anybody go to jail
undeservingly, or even so it's not a process you want to be involved in but we
have to protect ourselves and we have to protect each other.
Thank
you for listening to my – this is the first time I've actually told the story
publicly. As I said, it's uncomfortable, but I appreciate your attention here
today. Again, thank you to the people who've come to take part in this and to
witness this. Let's do what we can. Let's stick together. Let's do the best we
can because we owe that to each other and the people around us.
I look
forward to hearing the debate. I look forward to the support of the House
unanimously on this, and, again, it's about time.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
When is
the last time we were in the House of Assembly when a Member of government side
of the House got a standing ovation, followed by a Member in the Opposition
getting a standing ovation, followed by a Member on the government side of the
House getting a standing ovation? I don't remember it ever happening, Mr.
Speaker, but I can tell you, can we go for four?
Mr.
Speaker, in all honesty, after I'm finished my comments today I don't deserve a
standing ovation because I'm not a woman and I can't put myself in the place of
a woman and I certainly can't experience what the Member for Harbour Grace -
Port de Grave just described to this House, and did so publicly. I congratulate
you for standing in your place today and having the courage to discuss this
openly and publicly here. It's a big step for you, I'm sure, and it's a big step
for all of us to hear it, but good for you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to
take a moment to acknowledge the comments by the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape
La Hune. Over the last couple of days we've had several discussions about this
private Member's resolution and we immediately knew that we were very supportive
of what was being brought forward by the Member for Windsor Lake.
Our
discussions were about getting it right. It really was. It was about us getting
here today and using the small amount of time – because 15 minutes in the House
of Assembly for us to speak is not a lot of time, but we talked about using that
time as wisely as we can to make our messages and our deliveries as important
and as meaningful as possible because this is a very important private Member's
resolution, PMR. This is a very important private Member's resolution.
I thank
her for her comments today because I thought she did a great job, like she
always does. Towards the end, if you noticed, she just laid down her notes and
laid down her paper. She said I'm running out of time and there's something I
want to say. She talked about the conduct right here in this very House. She did
so – I could tell she was a little hesitant to do so and I wasn't expecting her
to do that. She did that, but I acknowledge her and I congratulate her as well
because here in the House we should be an example for all the public service.
We get
hot sometimes about policy and we get going on each other about policy and so
on, but we have to be careful not to be personal and not to be harassing. If you
look at the definitions of harassing it's a very broad range of actions,
activities, words, gestures, innuendo, a whole host of ways that harassment can
take place in the workplace.
The
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune is right, this is our workplace. And
especially for women, we should be respectful. I'll explain why in a moment,
because before I do I want to thank the Member for Windsor Lake for bringing
this forward as well. Because it is everything I just said. It's a very
important resolution.
As House
of Assembly encouraging government to improve on legislation on this very
important matter, it should absolutely be a priority. I know it's supported by
the Premier and the government. We're glad they do and we're glad they continue
to strive.
Mr.
Speaker, I looked at a survey done by the federal government they released last
fall. They did some public consultations, a survey. I had a quick look at it. It
was a Government of Canada report November 2017. In it they said of those that
did the online survey, a full 60 per cent of respondents reported experiencing
having harassment in the workplace – a full 60 per cent.
Thirty
per cent of the respondents had experienced sexual harassment; 21 per cent had
experienced violence, and 3 per cent said the harassment was actually sexual
violence. That's pretty serious. Mr. Speaker, 94 per cent – this goes back to my
point just a moment ago that I said I'm going to get to – 94 per cent of those
reporting sexual harassment were women, 94 per cent. So it is different for men
than it is for women.
I know
from my own background and my own years in my previous career, and it's no
surprise to anyone, that harassment is about power. When people are harassed it
is about power. Just by that very statistic, 94 per cent of those that have
experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, 94 per cent of them being women.
Quite often, and far too often, it's power by men over women.
It's
also power over other divergent members of our population, if you include people
such as LGBT community. Members before me talked about, and the Member for
Windsor Lake talked about how sometimes when a person raises the fact that
harassment has taken place in the workplace, they quite often become a target or
are marginalized by their own peers, their own people within their working
community.
It's not
just isolated to LGBTQ. It's people of colour, minorities, indigenous
communities, people who are differently abled, differently physically abled.
It's a broad range of people who have those smaller groups quite often that are
the victims of harassment in some form in the workplace.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I stand here today very honestly and very open. I can't be more honest
to say that as a man I don't understand fully. I can't say that I can stand in a
place of a woman and understand what a woman goes through, because I can't. Or
anybody else of a member of a divergent population or identified by – that are
victims of harassment because of who they are. I can't do that.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, I can say this, is that all of us have a responsibility. All of us
in the community have a responsibility. It doesn't matter if you're in
government or Opposition, if you're an employer or a supervisor, or if you're an
employee – and it doesn't have to be within government. It can be in private
business. I've been working for over 40 years, much of it in private, working
for private companies and private business. Much of my working career has been
in public service, and the last eight years or so as a Member of the House of
Assembly representing people here in the House.
Everywhere, no matter where it is, it doesn't have to be in your house or within
government, everywhere and every workplace in our province, people have to take
a stand and have a responsibility. Employers have a responsibility to make sure
employees understand what harassment is. They have a responsibility to supervise
and have a look over what's happening in their workplaces to make sure that
those types of activities do not take place. Employees have a responsibility to
raise the bar or put their hand up and say: Excuse me, that's not good enough.
Or to go to a supervisor or a third party independent person to say: I have a
problem, or I saw a problem in my workplace and something needs to be done about
it. So we all have a responsibility.
We also
need to ensure that as a Legislature and as government we can take that lead as
the PMR refers to, to say to workplaces and employers in the province and all
workplaces that it's not good enough to say you're going to do it, but to change
the legislation that impact workplaces to ensure it does happen. That's what
needs to happen, Mr. Speaker. That's why, as my colleague said, we will be
supporting this, because we believe government does have a role to play and we,
as legislators, have a role to play as well in making sure the bar is set high
and that what has happened in the past stops in the future.
Mr.
Speaker, I remember several years ago as a public servant when there was an
harassment issue that happened in the workplace, the policy said: Well, the
first thing that has to happen is the person who harassed you has to understand
that what they did was harassment. It immediately put the responsibility back on
the person harassed in the workplace.
I've
read through the new harassment-free workplace policy and there is a shift in
that, and there should be. Because the responsibility should not just simply be
with the person harassed, it should be with the person who is doing the
harassing and everyone. It's a community problem. If that community be your
office or your workplace or your neighbourhood or whatever the case may be, it's
a community problem.
We just
can't expect one person to say: Okay, this has been a terrible experience for
you, but we're going to lay it all on your shoulders to fix it. That's not good
enough. I see the shift that's happening here, and that has to take place, Mr.
Speaker. People and the greater community have to become more responsible.
We've
said for years to our children: You have to tell. We encourage people to tell.
Don't keep bad secrets. We've told children and young people: Don't keep bad
secrets, tell. I mentioned earlier, sometimes telling can bring more heat to the
person who's told. That's unacceptable. That's simply unacceptable. Because when
you think of all the global social media campaigns that are happening today –
the Member for Windsor Lake talked about them earlier, about MeToo and TIME'S
UP, as an example. There's no excuse today for not knowing what inappropriate
conduct is in a workplace.
Now,
there may be a very, very narrow grey area but people have to understand, if
that's the grey area you shouldn't do it. You shouldn't conduct yourself in a
way that could potentially be inappropriate. You have to stop doing it. You have
to resist from doing that. It's not acceptable to do that.
As I
said earlier, sometimes we can tap a colleague on the shoulder and say: you
shouldn't say that, or you shouldn't do that. That's not right. Just to let you
know now before this gets too big for you, don't go down that road. That's not
right. That's not hard for us to do, especially when harassment continues and
it's repetitive, because many harassments are repetitive. We just heard a very
difficult story to listen to about repetitive harassment.
The
Member for Windsor Lake referred earlier to PTSD, and it's true. A single
incident can cause PTSD. A series of incidents, as we've talked about in this
House before, can cause PTSD. Another aspect of this whole scenario that can be
a contributor to PTSD or other psychological disorders or other psychological
stressors on people is how an employer responds to the very person can be a
cause for PTSD.
When a
person has had an experience which is causing them significant difficulty in
their lives and they go to their employer for support and they don't get it that
could be a trigger. That could be that piece that pushes them over the edge and
puts them over the top of being able to handle any more because sometimes – I
did a video one time on PTSD. I laid a cup in my sink at home and I draped it
with a black T-shirt so no one could see what was in it and I had water dripping
in it.
The
point of it was, the cup was about half full and the water was dripping in it.
The point of the video was that eventually the cup is going to overflow, and can
anyone say what drop of water caused it to overflow? That was the point of it,
because that's what happens when you have repeated exposures that are causing
you or lead you to PTSD. Can you actually say what event or what drop of water
actually caused that cup to overflow? You can't, and sometimes how an employer
responds to an employee in need can be that drop of water that causes that cup
to overflow. It's an important point raised by the Member for
Windsor Lake on PTSD.
Mr. Speaker, I'm wearing a moose hide today, and you're
quite familiar with it because you did a campaign yourself just a few weeks ago
on moose hide. I wear it today and I have the card with me from the Moose Hide
Campaign and I was reading on their Facebook and on their website that they had
a million moose hides given out this year. They've reached a million moose hides
delivered throughout Canada this year.
The card that comes with it says, “The Moose Hide
campaign is a grassroots movement of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men who are
standing up against violence towards … women
and children. Wearing this moose hide signifies your commitment to honor,
respect, and protect the women and children in your life and to work together
with other men to end violence against … women and children. Our vision is to
spread the Moose Hide campaign to … organizations and communities” – and
governments – “throughout Canada.” I thought it very fitting for me to wear the
moose hide today, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I only have about a minute left.
Over the
last couple of days, I've had the conversation about workplace violence and
harassment against women many, many times, but the last couple of days I reached
out to some women that I know to say this PMR is coming up, are you familiar
with it? Here's what it is. I'm interested in your thoughts on it.
One of
the women I spoke to raised my awareness to a song that goes back to the 1960s.
Actually, it was the International Women's Day slogan in 2008. The song is
called “Bread and Roses.” The line in the song, which I fully agree with, says
this: the rising of the women is the rising of us all. And I think that's an
important point today.
I thank
the Member for bringing forward the PMR today, and we look forward to supporting
it when it comes time to vote.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I wish I
could stand as tall as my hon. colleague. I'm going to have to lean a little bit
today. I wanted to acknowledge that I have a bit of a back issue. So forgive me
for leaning, but I'll do that.
Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly an honour and a privilege, and I'm saying it's an
emotional day. It's a somewhat difficult day to hear some of the stories we're
hearing today, but it certainly is an enlightening day. I think I want to
recognize all my colleagues in this room for sharing their stories and giving
their support to this. We are setting – we must set, as Members of the House of
Assembly, as leaders in our communities, a higher standard, and I think today we
are rising to that.
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to recognize those in the galleries today that are lending
their support, because I think it's going to take our collective strength, the
House of Assembly with its leadership, our community with its leadership, to
say: No more, enough is enough. Violence, harassment, bullying and abuse is not
to be tolerated. It's up to every single one of us to ensure that is the case.
Mr.
Speaker, for those who might be just joining us at home, we're debating a motion
today brought forward by the Member for Windsor Lake. It really does speak to
supporting newly strengthened and modernized workplace harassment policies
introduced by the government and urging government to show continued leadership
by making legislative changes to these and other pieces of legislation to ensure
women and others are protected in all workplaces in Newfoundland and Labrador
from harassment and sexual harassment.
Mr.
Speaker, how important this debate is today, how important it is to stand and
acknowledge that this is still occurring every single day. We cannot tolerate
that, Mr. Speaker. We have to show the leadership. We have to show the strength.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
We, together, can make a
change and difference. Just like it's been spoken off today already. The TIME'S
UP movement and the MeToo movement who are bringing shining light on this issue.
Mr.
Speaker, I've been involved in the business community for all my career, until
politics, and I can tell you there were oftentimes when I was the only female in
the room. There were oftentimes I was the only female that was involved in
leadership roles. There were oftentimes when there was a lot of innuendo, jokes,
a little bit of harassment, then a lot more harassment for others to experience.
I think
that over time, we are starting to understand the impacts of these jokes and
innuendos and the harassment. We heard a very poignant speech this afternoon
talking about how harassment goes a little too far. We've heard another one of
our colleagues talk about the social media and how difficult that is for all of
us, males and females, but how that bullying behaviour has to stop.
Mr.
Speaker, I've spoken quite passionately about this in the past, about how
harassment and violence and bullying has to stop in our society.
Now, how
are the ways that government has been doing things – and I'll share with you, as
I'm going to, by the way, share my time with my hon. colleague. So I'm keeping a
mindful eye on my time.
I want
to say some of the things we are doing, Mr. Speaker. We are working very
diligently on a violence prevention program. It was brought in by a former
administration. We've been working towards ensuring that violence is not
acceptable in our society. We'll be going out again this year to update, advance
and modernize that plan.
We have
also looked at updating the Family Violence Act, that was Bill 1, as you saw
most recently, Mr. Speaker. We've established a ministerial committee on
violence against women and girls so we can make sure that we have an ongoing
discussion amongst ministers and advancements among ministers of some of these
things. Certainly, we'll be working towards – as this motion is indicating –
changing some of the legislation coming forward.
We're
updating the Schools Act this year. My
hon. colleague, the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development has
been working very diligently on that. There's a lot happening in this regard.
The
reason why we have to do this, Mr. Speaker, is to address this fundamental,
societal issue. I am incredibly pleased to stand here today and acknowledge,
really, one particular paragraph that was in the Speech from the Throne. I just
want to remind us all what it said, only because I think it was profound.
It said:
“Raising standards and expectations for how our society treats women is
an important focus of our Government. Violence against women and girls is one of
the most serious issues facing society today. Unfortunately, many women continue
to experience violence. Fifty per cent of women over the age of 15 have
experienced or will experience at least one incident of sexual or physical
violence in their lifetime. The likelihood of experiencing violence is tripled
for Indigenous women. Violence, in any form, is unacceptable.”
I think that speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker, when the Speech
from the Throne contains a paragraph of that strength. I can assure you as
Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, I can assure you as a legislator
and as someone who's really committed to our community, I am working with my
colleagues on doing just that. We have to address this very profound issue. How
we do that is collaborating and working very strongly and well together.
The progressive – I call it very progressive – workplace
harassment policy just brought in by the Minister of Finance, into government, I
think will go a long way in addressing it within government. What this motion
does – and I'm very proud of my colleague for bringing it forward. What this motion does it says it has to go
forward beyond government and go to all workplaces across our communities and
around our province.
I
certainly support that. I'm going to sit down and take my seat, Mr. Speaker, so
that my hon. colleague can have time to address issues from her perspective.
Thank
you very much, 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 am
quite pleased to stand this afternoon and speak to this private Member's motion
and I thank the Member for Windsor Lake for putting this here on the floor. It's
been said a number of times this afternoon, it's about time, and I have to say
yes, it is about time.
Twenty-five years ago I experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, direct
sexual harassment, and it was in a very progressive workplace. Twenty-five years
ago we had a policy in place and 25 years ago as a woman who had already worked
for decades, like many of the women who are here in our gallery today, on the
issue of number one, as a feminist just on women's equality but specifically how
we suffer harassment. I knew what I had to do, and I was able to do it because
there was a policy in place 25 years ago.
Here we
are today, in this Member's motion, asking the government to show continued
leadership. I don't deny anything the minister in charge of the Women's Policy
Office has said here this afternoon, but encouraging the government to show
continued leadership by making legislative changes to a number of our pieces of
legislation which are mentioned in the WHEREASes –
Labour Relations Act, Labour
Standards Act, Occupational Health and
Safety Act – to make changes in that legislation to ensure women and others
are protected in all workplaces in our province from harassment and sexual
harassment.
I would
have hoped that legislation was in place, and this motion is about urging the
government to put legislation in place. We do not have a bill that at this
moment is talking about amendments and putting legislation in place. It's what
the Member's motion is asking for. I find it significant that she is, as a
Member of the caucus, is asking her government and the government of the
province to do this.
I'm
still hoping before the afternoon is out we will hear from the government that
they are, yes, going to do what this asks. We can only urge government, even as
individuals, even as a caucus, as people here in the House; we can only urge
government to do something. I'm hoping before the afternoon is out, and I
suspect my colleague is hoping as well, that we're going to hear government say
yes, they will make amendments to legislation. We've been waiting for decades.
The
women who are sitting here today with us have been waiting for decades and
working for decades. What we're doing here today, we're not asking them to
support us. We're finally supporting what the feminist movement, women in the
community, women in the labour movement have been decades saying. So that's what
we're doing here today. We have to show support. We're the ones who have to show
the support and give the leadership.
If
anything is important from a governmental perspective, we have legislation to
cover it. Think of all the things we cover with legislation. Every movement we
make is covered with legislation. So if we really think it is important to deal
with harassment of women in the workplace, harassment in the workplace – period
– and then specifically harassment of women, then we would have legislation.
This is
not something strange. I know it's not rampant across the country; however – and
this is what I want to speak to. I thank all of my colleagues who have stood and
given testimony, colleagues who have stood and talked about sexual harassment,
given the statistics, given the information. So I'm not going to repeat that. I
may before the rest of my time is up, but what I want to do is focus first on
where we do have legislation in place in the country so that we realize we have
models we can follow.
The
first jurisdiction I want to talk about is the federal jurisdiction. Parliament
debated legislation last fall to tighten workplace harassment rules. They have a
bill, Bill C-65; it's gone through its second reading. It went through the
second reading in January and it was referred to the Standing Committee on Human
Resources, Skills and Social Development, which is holding meetings and hearing
testimony from across the country.
So
they're doing that right now, and note the process. It's a process we talk about
all the time. We want to work together on issues. Look at what they're doing.
The Standing Committee, which is an All-Party Committee, is holding meetings and
hearing testimony from across the country. That's significant.
So that
process is in place. What that legislation will apply to is federal workplaces,
including Parliament and federally regulated private businesses such as Air
Canada. The legislation specifies procedures for employers to handle allegations
of harassment and bullying. There is the option of an outside investigator – so
a third party outside – when the employer is too close to the situation or is
named in the complaint. There are privacy rules to protect victims and it only
applies, as I said, to federal workplaces.
Now,
it's important to point out that we do have an excellent policy that's coming in
on June 1. There's no doubt about it. I've read it. I've gone through it. It's
excellent. It does follow the recommendations very closely; the 18
recommendations that were made by consultant's report of 2015. It follows those
recommendations very, very closely, but it's still only a policy. I think any
policy of this nature needs the strength of legislation. I absolutely believe
that.
I'm
urging, begging this government to take the action of saying: Yes, a bill is
going to come to this House and the bill is going to look at legislation with
regard to harassment in the workplace.
In
Ontario, they actually had existing legislation on sexual harassment and in 2016
– two years ago – they strengthened its existing legislation. They put more
responsibility on employers to prevent and address sexual harassment. They have
put their legislation in the context of their
Occupational Health and Safety Act, which now defines workplace
sexual harassment. Every employer is required to have a policy to deal with it
and to investigate complaints.
The
Ministry of Labour can order a third-party investigation at the employer's
expense, if the ministry decides the workplaces initial investigation wasn't
enough. That's the kind of strength that we need.
This is
dealing with the general workplace, not just the governmental workplace. In
Ontario, they've gone further than the federal government legislation is. So the
legislation of the federal government is behind what's happening in other
places.
I say:
Why can't we do the same? We do know that we have the policy. The policy, again,
is only a policy within government and government agencies. It's not a policy
that is looking at the general workplace.
We do
know also that in the workplaces in general, especially in unionized workplaces,
that the labour movement in their collective agreements have taken great steps
with regard to getting policies put in place. In many unionized labour
workplaces, you have joint policies that have been worked out with the employers
and sometimes, sometimes not, the language is in the collective agreements, but
big efforts have been made because of the work of women inside of the labour
movement.
Some
non-union employers may have something as well. My workplace, where I went
through sexual harassment, wasn't unionized, but it was a very progressive
workplace committed to working for social justice and it was a small workplace.
So it's not as frequently that you're going to find that kind of thing happen.
Having
the policy by June 1 will be good. We could actually, by June 1, have a bill in
place. I don't see why not. If we don't do it then, it could come in place in
the fall, but the commitment to having legislation is really important. The
commitment to having legislation that is covering all workplaces in the province
is really important because harassment is happening.
Some of
the statistics have been used, harassment is happening everywhere. In our
province, gender sexual harassment is a form of discrimination under the
Human Rights Act. We already name it
there, but it's not written into our Occupational Health and Safety
legislation, which would be a logical place for it to be, and where they
have it in Ontario, as I've pointed out.
I don't
know what's stopping the government from doing that. I don't know why the
government thinks just having the policy is satisfactory. Usually, what happens
is you have legislation, and policy and regulations follow. That's usually what
happens.
Here we
are with policy without any legislation backing it up. So I really urge this
government to not only look at putting the legislation in place but putting
legislation in place that covers all of the workplaces in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Giving teeth to the legislation so that it's not optional, nothing
about it can be optional.
Many
times the behaviour, the sexual – especially when it's sexual assault – is
criminal behaviour. I mean that's very, very serious. It's criminal behaviour,
and yet somebody, a woman or a man, but in most cases it's women, in a workplace
who has been criminally assaulted feels afraid of coming forth with it because
there is nothing within the workplace to support the person.
I
thought the Leader of the Official Opposition, who himself has worked inside the
criminal system, presented very strong arguments for the legislation. Whether
it's criminal activity or non-criminal activity, there should be everything in
the workplace, all workplaces, to protect the worker – all places – and it
should be something that's there by law, not just a policy.
That's
the difference. Legislation means it's there by law and is protected by law. A
policy is not protected by law, legislation is. That's what we need. That's what
women in this province are looking for.
I won't
put words in her mouth, but my colleague from Windsor Lake, the Member for
Windsor Lake, I'm sure that's what she's looking for because ultimate protection
is what we want. Policy doesn't give ultimate protection and that's what we have
to look for.
When I
look through our policy document, it's good. It names who is going to be –
where's the central point that women can make the complaint to. They name what
body will manage the complaint system. All the pieces are there, but it's still
policy. There's nothing to say who put's that in place.
Government is going to put it in place June 1, I know that, but there's nothing
to say: What's the penalty if the policy isn't followed? That's not there, and
it's government governing itself. So that's the issue. It's government governing
ourselves. We put something in legislation, we make it legal. It's something
that's protected by law, and if the women in this province deserve anything,
that's what they deserve.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, every individual has the right to come to work to an environment
where they do not face harassment, violence or discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I
strongly believe the statistics are higher than one in 10.
This is
a difficult day for females in this House of Assembly, but it is a day of
opportunity. It is a day to direct change. It is a day to lead.
Mr.
Speaker, we fully believe that harassment and violence are not acceptable in any
form. I fully believe this, and as the Minister of Service NL, I have the
responsibility for the Occupational Health
and Safety Act. The act focuses on protecting the health and safety of
workers by setting certain minimum conditions for all workplaces in the
province, not just in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sections 22
to 24 of the act deal specifically with violence prevention in the workplace.
In the
regulations, Mr. Speaker, violence is defined as: “An attempted or actual
exercise by a person, other than a worker, of physical force to cause injury to
a worker, and includes threatening statements or behavior which gives a worker
reason to believe that he or she is at risk of injury.”
The
intent of these sections of the regulations is for an employer to address all
forms of violence in the workplace through policies and procedures. It also
identifies the employer's duty to inform workers about risks and precautions.
Mr.
Speaker, since our government came into power in 2015, we have been reviewing
various pieces of legislation to ensure it is relevant for the people we serve.
Through a number of means, such as public consultations and jurisdictional
scans, Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed best practices.
The
occupational health and safety regulations, as an example, focus on violence in
the workplace between a non-worker and a worker. This is something we are
currently reviewing as we want to ensure that all aspects of the worker's safety
are captured in the regulations.
Mr.
Speaker, we recently appointed Members to the Advisory Council on Occupational
Health and Safety, reaffirming our commitment to occupational health and safety
throughout the province. The advisory council will advise me, as the Minister of
Service NL.
When
this committee meets, Mr. Speaker, I will refer the matter of violence in the
workplace between a non-worker and a worker as it is currently defined in our
regulations to the council for review and recommendations on expanding the
definition.
I will
also, Mr. Speaker, have the council look at harassment, not just violence. I
commit here today as the Minister of Service NL, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, in February, as
minister, I released a five-year workplace injury prevention strategy advancing
a strong safety culture in Newfoundland and Labrador. The strategy notes that
over the past decade the rate of workplace violence has increased from 5.2
injuries per 10,000 workers to 8.9. Mr. Speaker, that is an increase of 71 per
cent.
Occupational Health and Safety legislation requires risk assessments to be
completed for workplace violence and working alone. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker,
we know these risk assessments are not widely employed in workplaces, and more
education and enforcement is required and will happen.
As a
government, we understand the importance of working with our stakeholders to
address issues they feel need to be brought to the forefront. Workplace
harassment is certainly one of these issues.
Mr.
Speaker, a number of our stakeholders are here today listening to this private
Member's resolution. A number of ministers from our government recently met with
the Federation of Labour and Unifor primarily to discuss the issue of domestic
violence. However, this also has implications regarding workplace harassment
policies and legislation. It was agreed that we will continue these discussions.
Mr.
Speaker, research shows that incidents of harassment and violence in Canadian
workplaces often go unreported because people fear retaliation. Our government,
however, is sending a clear message on this topic. We take all instances of
harassment in the workplace very seriously, and will not tolerate them. MHAs in
this House of Assembly will not tolerate them. In fact, we are focused on
improving outcomes for the people of our province in eliminating violence of all
forms.
Just
recently, our government also announced that we are introducing amendments to
the Family Violence Protection Act to
better support adult victims of domestic violence and their children. The
amendments will expand the definition of family violence to include emotional,
psychological and financial harm.
In
closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to state once again that every single one of us
have the right to feel safe, no matter where we are. This includes the
workplace. It is incumbent upon each and every one of us to spread that message
of tolerance, respect and appreciation of differences.
It is
also incumbent upon all of us to strive to create a workplace, an environment
which cultivates teamwork, co-operation and positive interaction. Harassment of
any type is not acceptable. And as my colleague from Windsor Lake said, we need
to do more.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. PARSLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you to my hon. colleague from Windsor Lake for bringing this piece of
legislation forward. There are only a number of us females here in this House,
and, yes, we all have been elected to the House of Assembly to represent the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are bringing in laws like this and we're
bringing them forward.
It is
not acceptable what's going on, and we have to stop it here. It was okay, people
thought, years ago; years ago when people, actually back in the 50s, didn't know
any better. Sexual abuse, things that were happening, were kind of accepted, but
due to the education today of our young people, the MeToo movement, all of this
has brought things forward to make a difference, and I look in our galleries
today.
A few
weeks ago I spoke on Women's International Day about strong women. Yes, we all
have to be strong.
My
colleague from
Harbour Grace - Bay Roberts today got up and spoke. She
was strong –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Port de Grave.
MS.
PARSLEY:
Port de Grave, sorry – she was strong, because in order to bring this forward –
we can't sweep it under the rug anymore. It's horrible what's happening in our
workplaces. If you can't get up in the morning, get dressed and go to work and
do your day's job without having to worry about someone sexually harassing you,
it's not normal. With this piece of legislation that our Member has brought
forward, I'm hoping things our government is working towards making things
better.
Our Justice Minister just recently had a day where all
the colleagues here in the House want to – violence against women. I had the
honour that day of sitting next to a group of women who explained their stories.
It was horrendous. I was fortunate enough to sit next to a female officer of the
RCMP who took down the whole RCMP because she was brave enough to bring it
forward. Can you imagine the RCMP, who we all tremble at if we get hauled in for
a speeding ticket or not – but she took it on and she brought it forward and she
won.
When she told me the story of when she got pregnant,
you know the uniforms they wear with the wide belts, and she had to hide her
pregnancy for four months. Can you imagine how uncomfortable that was every day
with this wide belt and trying to breathe? It was horrific. She wrote a book,
she won her settlement, and she brought it to us.
The MeToo movement has brought many things forward, but
I can tell you I'm not going to go with what other people have said. I'm just
going to speak for a few minutes because there are other people who want to
speak and I think everybody needs to speak, but I will tell you as people in
this gallery today, I know that this government will do what it can to change
the legislation. It needs to be changed. We need to be safe.
I work here with Members in this hon. House and let me
tell you, it's a pleasure to work with a male and female. I look forward to
getting up in the morning and coming to work because I know it's a place where
we can all work.
With that said, I'm going to sit and let someone else
have a chance to speak.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very happy to stand here to support this private
Member's motion. I, too, would like to thank the Member for Windsor Lake and all
my colleagues who have spoken in the House and all the women for decades who
have had the courage
and the wisdom to speak out through the decades on these issues. We know how
important it is – everyone has said that here today – to ensure respectful, safe
workplaces for everyone.
One of
the things we've often seen, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the women's movement,
in the anti-racist movement and those working for the rights of LGBTQ
two-spirited people, our indigenous people, that our rights are never given to
us. They, in fact, are hard won.
This is
about rights. This is about the right to work in a safe and an inclusive
workplace which we want for all of our people, for everyone in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Again, we must not forget that those rights are never given to us,
they're hard won. Our gallery is filled with women who know that, who have
worked so hard for decades to ensure that women and girls have rights that not
only protect us but allow us to thrive and to fulfill our dreams, and to fulfill
the dreams of our families.
So this
is a good thing we are doing here today, Mr. Speaker. The other thing is it also
points out to the issue how important it is, because this should have been done
a long time ago.
As my
colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi has said, 25 years ago she was in a
place of employment that had a specific policy. So when she was affected she
knew what she could do, where the supports were and what could happen. The map
was laid out.
That's
what this private Member's motion is doing. It's to say to government make it
clear, give it teeth, show women, show racialized communities, show members from
the LGBTQ two-spirited community how this can be done so you know what your
rights are, so the employer knows what their obligation is. That's what this is
about. We all know there is no longer any tolerance for this.
The
other thing is we know that laws do not change hearts. They really don't, but
what they do is protect those from those who are heartless, and that's what
we're talking about here today as well. I believe we can do this. It's not going
to cost us any money, so there's no excuse there. There's certainly a public
will. I'm hoping there is a unanimous political will to do this as well.
We know
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want it. They want it for their
children. They want it for their mothers and their aunts and their daughters. We
all want this. It's the right thing to do.
Again,
it shows how important it is to have women at the tables where decisions are
being made, because this won't happen without women at the table, without
racialized people at the table, without people who are living with disabilities
at the table, without indigenous people at the table, without people from the
LGBTQ two-spirited communities at the table. These kinds of issues are not
brought to the table and are not addressed fully and comprehensively.
That's
another lesson we learned today by the introduction of this private Member's
motion. Of course, my colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and the
Official Opposition, we've all said we're going to support this and that's
exactly what we're going to do. We're going to be able to see this House close
at the end of today and feel that, wow; we have done something really, really
good, something significant here.
There
are so many lessons for us to learn about this. From now on what we need to do,
every one of us in this House, we have to keep asking ourselves – whether it's
in special committee meetings, whether it's in the way we hire folks in our
employ – who is not at the table? Whose voice is not at the table? Because it is
so important – again, we show here today that it's so important that women were
at the table for this to come forward.
One
would have hoped, when we've heard stories from the Member for Harbour Grace -
Port de Grave, that people tell their stories. I have a story, too. I can
remember being horribly sexually harassed in a workplace when I was 16 years
old, and had my father not been in the parking lot waiting for me to finish my
job in a grocery store, I don't know what would have happened. That was my
safety and my escape.
We all
have stories like that. We all know them in our family members. We all know
them. And God, how it breaks our heart when we know it happens to our daughters.
This is a little bit of extra safety and a little bit of extra protection.
How
discouraging it is that in 2018 we're only now doing this. One would have hoped
that any successive government would have done it much sooner, but they haven't
so here we are. We're going to do it. I assume we're going to do it. I assume
it's not just going to be encouraging to kind of look at and maybe we'll think
about it but actually do it because there is no longer any good reason not to do
it. We know that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. ROGERS:
It's not going to cost us any
money. It's the right thing to do. I don't believe that there's anybody, any
Member in this House, who can go back to their district and say: You know, b'y,
I just couldn't support it because I'm not exactly sure. I'm sure there's nobody
in this House who can go back to their districts and justify to the good people
in their district, to the women in their district, to the racialized people in
their district, to the people in the LGBTQ2 spirited community, people with
disabilities, folks who are often – all of us in those categories – most
targeted because we are perceived to be the most vulnerable. So I don't think
anybody can go back to their communities and justify why they wouldn't do this.
There is
also another issue, Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise just before sitting down
and that is when we look at our budget. Unless we do whatever is necessary to
lift women out of poverty, women will continue to be vulnerable in places of
work. Women will continue to be harassed in places of work.
I would
like to, again, thank the women in the anti-violence communities, the women in
the labour movement who have been incredible leaders in this area, who have
educated their members, who have lobbied on federal, municipal and provincial
levels, after they'd done their own work in their own places of work in their
own unions. They have been leaders in this area and I would like to thank them
for that leadership that they have played in this.
So,
again, I know that when we pass this all – and it mustn't be just lip service.
It mustn't just be encouraging government to look at pieces of legislation.
Let's see concrete action, concrete legislation, embedded, absolutely embedded
in our legislation, in our three pieces of workplace legislation. Let's just do
it so we can move on with trying to look at ways to make our province prosperous
once again.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to go home happy, if I feel that's going to happen here. I
know that the good folks up there in the gallery are going to go home happy. I
assume that our families and our communities are going to happy that this has
happened as well. If, in fact, it moves beyond just encouraging the possibility
of the maybe, of wouldn't it be nice to actually establishing solid legislation
with real teeth to make a difference in the lives of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly an opportunity, which I really appreciate, to be able to stand in this
House today. We will be supporting, of course, this private Member's resolution
that has been put forward by the Member for Windsor Lake.
Mr.
Speaker, I stand here today not just as Premier of this province. I've listened
to a lot of stories that people today told about various experiences. All of us
in this House, in our own right, are leaders. A lot of us come from leadership
backgrounds within our communities, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Leader of the Opposition already may have made mention, you come from a
perspective of being a male really in this, but typically, as you know, it's
been the female, young women and women in our society who has been impacted in a
disproportionate way.
I can
share many of my own experiences working in an environment that was really
dominated primarily by young women. Mr. Speaker, I also speak from the
experience of a male who happens to be a son, happens to be an uncle, who
happens to be a father, happens to be a grandfather, Mr. Speaker, and someone
who has had many women in our society share their experiences with me.
I think
I will take a few minutes today just to share just a few because we talk often
about harassment, sexual assault and all kinds of assault that happens. If you
look through our news stories today there are even more examples that are
happening in our communities even today.
Mr.
Speaker, I remember vividly one story that was shared with me from a senior who
called me just two days before Christmas and was looking for a safe place to
live. As many of you would know, I spent some time housing seniors in seniors'
homes and so on, but I always remember the story of an elderly woman who was
looking for a safe place to live just prior to Christmas. What she was trying to
escape wasn't an assault or harassment from someone she didn't know, it was
actually her son.
The
policy, even within government, for those of us who are homeowners, really
didn't even allow for this woman to be brought in because there was policy
things, guidelines that you have to go through, assessments and all that would
have to be done. I can remember going to the elderly woman and saying: We have a
spot for you. Mr. Speaker, she spent the last years of her life in that home.
But as
has been mentioned already, in order for that chain to stop, there needed to be
someone to intervene with the son because I wasn't prepared to be a bystander in
this situation. I wasn't prepared to see someone who had lived their life and
someone not to intervene or advocate on their part.
We have
people in the gallery here today, Mr. Speaker, in their own right, I can almost
assure you there is a story behind every face that's in this gallery here today.
They are advocating for somebody or some situation that they are aware of.
Mr.
Speaker, as we stand here today, and as Premier of this province and as the
minister have already said, we've had some ministers speak to this, it's been
questioned whether government will support this and really begin a process to
make change. People wonder why in 2018 we're still hearing these stories.
Mr.
Speaker, we can talk about the past but the opportunity exists here today. There
are still too many people who are still in the shadows with secrets and stories
that they still hide.
The
Leader of the Opposition mentioned about which drop of water that actually
caused the cup to overflow. What he was referring to is where is the tipping
point in society that causes the impact on someone's life, causes an impact for
someone, in many cases, to harm themselves or it leads them into a state of
depression or anxiety, but it is impactful. There are too many women, too many
females, too many young women, elderly women in our society today because
someone didn't intervene.
Sometimes not stepping in or not intervening can be that tipping point.
Sometimes doing nothing can be the tipping point. So we have a responsibility,
Mr. Speaker, as leaders, not just in this House of Assembly, but leaders in our
society, in a more general sense, so that we give people the opportunity to
speak and to speak up, not only just for themselves, but for others as well.
Mr.
Speaker, as has been said already, we started this process and there have been
some changes that we've made already, but in order for those changes to have the
momentum that's required to really effect change so that it actually affects and
people's lives are changed and people are comfortable in stepping up – the
Member mentioned earlier about sometimes just having your name appear on a court
docket would simply mean that you're not willing to put your name out there to
actually stand up for yourself. These are little simple things that can actually
mean a big difference.
Mr.
Speaker, as I stand here today and I've listened to all the stories that have
been told, people speaking about experience and as legislators the opportunity
that we have – there has been three pieces of legislation that's been mentioned
already; some work has already been done. I will mention this before I conclude
my remarks – I've just got a few minutes left – I also want to think of the
disproportionate amount of young indigenous women and girls in our society
today. We see the national inquiry that we are participating in, Mr. Speaker,
and our inquiry into Innu children in care. As we work with the Nunatsiavut
Government today, this process and work has already begun. I'm sure today as we
stand – and if indeed there is a vote or whatever happens, we will be supporting
this.
We have
started the process to make meaningful, real change in legislation that's
required to set a standard. Maybe no other province –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I have about one minute left before I turn it back to my colleague.
I think the responsibly is on us, as males, and is on us, as leaders, in our
society today to begin the process, and we will.
I will
finish my remarks today by standing here as Premier, father, grandfather and so
on, in society for many, many years, I've heard many stories that you should not
have to listen to in the future.
Mr.
Speaker, thank you very much and we will be supporting this PMR today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Windsor Lake to close the debate.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly want to thank all the Members of the House today who participated in
this afternoon's debate. Although that seems like an inappropriate word to call
it, but that is the technical word. I do want to say a particular thank you to
the Members who spoke and also the ones who sat in the House and listened to the
debate, which is oftentimes equally as important in a debate.
The
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune who talked about being tired of waiting
and it's time to make sure that the bad behaviour has fewer places to hide in
the shadows, which I thought was an appropriate thing to remind us all of before
we do vote.
I want
to thank the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave for personally sharing her
own story. A real example of what I said in my opening comments about the
emotional impact, the career impact and the family impact that harassment can
have.
I want
to thank the Member for Topsail - Paradise. I think his comments about employers
and leaders responding to employees and how they do that is critical in ensuring
that the glass that's covered doesn't overflow. Thank you for sharing that
story.
To the
Member for St. John's West who spoke about government policy, as it relates to
employees of government. I certainly want to say thank you to the Minister of
Finance, the minister of the Women's Policy Office and the Premier for
continuing the work and making the policy changes happen inside core government
that needed to happen around employment policy, as government is an employer.
I want
to also thank the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's. I have every confidence
under her leadership in the Department of Service NL that when she says she's
going to do something, she's going to make it happen and she knows I'll be
hounding her to make it so. I also thought her words that today is the day of
opportunity and today is a day to lead were quite apropos for this afternoon's
discussion.
The
Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi spoke about the decades that women have
been waiting for laws to protect them. I think it's important for all of us to
hear that it is decades that women have been waiting and others have been
waiting for protection in workplaces in Newfoundland and Labrador, public and
private and non-traditional workplaces.
I want
to also thank the Member for Harbour Main who spoke and talked about the need to
change things and her believe that this is the group and this is the Legislature
that can make that change happen. I also want to thank the Member for St. John's
Centre who spoke about the importance of respectful workplaces that are safe for
everyone in our community, and that no one is left feeling unsafe as they try to
support themselves and their families and their communities in their efforts to
be a good employer.
I
certainly want to thank the Premier for his comments and his commitment to
leading, not only change in the area of occupational health and safety or safety
in the workplaces, and particularly legislation that governs workplaces, but
also his comments that were broader about other things that our government has
planned to improve laws as it relates to women and children, in particular, in
our province. I thank him for his leadership there.
Mr.
Speaker, it was referenced earlier about other provinces that have made changes
to their law. I want to specifically talk about Ontario for a minute. Ontario,
as I understand it, made changes in 2011 to their
Occupational Health and Safety Act specifically around harassment,
sexual harassment, and some would say harassment would include bullying.
They
actually went back to the drawing board in 2016 and further defined sexual
harassment and raised the bar even higher. They also addressed domestic leave as
part of that effort. Something that, at another date, I'm sure we'll have a
discussion in this House about how important that is to provide domestic leave
to women who face challenges at home, not just in the workplace.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it's important for all of us to remind ourselves that
harassment can ruin an individual's life forever. It has the ability to not only
affect the emotions but also the physical and mental well-being of the person, a
woman or other. It can even lead to more major problems such as illnesses and,
as has been referred to in this House, death through suicide. Fairness and
respect must always be present in the workplace to maintain balanced working
relationships.
I want
to say a particular thank you to the members of the community who joined us
today here in the gallery and also those who joined us at home watching this
private Member's resolution.
We have
the privilege as Members of this House of Assembly to sit here and create the
laws. That process often happens in a variety of ways. It can happen from an
individual in the House bringing something forward, it can happen from the
bureaucracy bringing something forward, it can happen from community engagement,
but, at the end of the day, it is the 40 Members of this House, 39 including the
Speaker, that create the laws that govern our province.
Despite
the fact, as was acknowledged earlier this afternoon, that this is a difficult
conversation I think for all of us to talk about, it is a conversation that we
must have because we have the privilege of sitting in this House and making
those laws. Policies, platitudes, programs all serve a purpose, but at the end
of the day it's the law and how we change that legislation and how we change the
regulations to reflect the changes in legislation that ultimately improve the
accountability in our community.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, and understanding we're moments away from closing the
House for Easter break, I want to thank everybody who participated in the
debate, and thank the colleagues who listened and I look forward to the call for
the vote on this motion.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I would like to remind all
Members that the Social Services Committee will be meeting here in the Chamber
at 17:30 hours, 30 minutes from now, to review the Estimates of the Department
of Justice and Public Safety.
This
being Wednesday, and consistent with Standing Order 9, this House do now adjourn
until tomorrow, Monday, the 16th day of April at 1:30 o'clock.