April 21, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 16
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have Members'
statements for the Districts of Lewisporte Twillingate, Fortune Bay Cape La
Hune, Conception Bay South, St. George's Humber, St. John's Centre and Baie
Verte Green Bay.
The hon.
the Member for Lewisporte Twillingate.
MR. D. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to recognize Mr. Goward Heath. Goward grew up on Fogo Island and in
1940 at the age of 24, he joined the Royal Naval with six of his buddies. He
served throughout World War II and remained with the military until 1945.
His
deployments led him to the Mediterranean and Atlantic oceans where he served as
a gunner on a minesweeper. Post-war, Mr. Heath returned to Lewisporte and was
instrumental in forming the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 31. For 60 years, he
held executive positions as president, secretary and treasurer.
Mr.
Heath volunteered with Civil Defence and was a Canadian Ranger. He also
volunteered with the Canadian Army in Botwood, the 617 Dambuster Squadron in
Lewisporte, St. Matthew's Church and many other community boards and committees.
For his
brave service and contribution to his country, Goward received many awards
including the Queen's Jubilee Commemorative award, the Legion's Meritorious
Service Award and the Palm Leaf. On October 22, 2015, Goward celebrated his
100th birthday with his family and friends.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in honouring Mr. Goward Health for
his service to this great province and country.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize two industrious young women, Nicole Whittle and
Eemaan Thind of Harbour Breton, both recipients of a Youth Ventures Award at the
18th Annual Provincial Youth Ventures Awards in St. John's in 2015.
Nicole
received the Star Coordinator Award for her exceptional work as the Youth
Ventures Coordinator for the South Coast Coast of Bays region. This award goes
to the Site Coordinator that has shown initiative and outstanding efforts in the
delivery of youth ventures in their area.
Ms.
Thind received the Excellence in Product Design Award for EemaanArt. This award
is given to a business that shows unique talent in the craft or artistic ability
of their product. Congratulations to Eemaan for employing her awesome creativity
and artistic skills creating customized handmade drawings and henna body
tattoos.
We are
all so very proud of Nicole and Eemaan for their great accomplishments and
commend them for being excellent role models for our youth.
I ask
that all Members join me in congratulating these fine young women who I am sure
will continue to show outstanding effort and success in their future endeavours.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Winterfest in CBS was a huge success this year. The ten-day event kicked off on
February 6 and took place at various locations throughout Conception Bay South.
Winterfest has become a tradition in our community. I attended many events this
year and experienced first-hand the strong community spirit.
I'd like
to extend my congratulations and thanks to the Winterfest committee, sponsors,
volunteers and the Town of Conception Bay South for contributing to the
festivals' success.
Mr.
Speaker, Winterfest 2016 had activities for all ages and groups. I was pleased
to attend many events, including the Fred Squires and Annie Parsons Shield
Hockey Challenge, as well as the Junior High Challenge.
The
Annual Pancake Breakfast was a huge success, with a record turnout at the new
CBS Arena. This year there were some new activities added, including an Outdoor
Family Fun Day, and a Casino Night fundraiser in support of the 2016
Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating the
Winterfest committee and the Town of Conception Bay South in hosting a
tremendous winter festival.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's Humber.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, recently
American archaeologist Sarah Pareak received a lot of media attention related to
her discovery of what seems to be the second Viking site in this province.
She used
satellite imagery to help hone in on an area that seemed to have evidence of
human activity at Point Rosie in the Codroy Valley. Last summer the team visited
the site and found turf walls and stone hearth which seems to have been used to
heat bog iron.
The
findings were supported by researchers from the University of Massachusetts, who
used radiocarbon dating to determine the bog iron found in the area dated back
to 800 to 1200 AD, which would place them around the time of the Vikings in
North America.
While
there is still a lot of work to be done to determine the significance of these
findings, this is a very important discovery for the area. Along with the
confirmed site at L'Anse aux Meadows, this new site would certainly solidify the
province as the Vinland mentioned in the Viking sagas.
I ask
all Members to join with me in recognizing the value of this work done so far
and wish these investigators well in their future work at Point Rosie.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
How
happy I am to announce that our very own Amelia Curran has won two ECMAs for
Folk Recording of the Year and Songwriter of the Year for her latest album
They Promised You Mercy. Amelia is on tour and what a brilliant ambassador
of mercy she is.
She
represents the best in us; hard worker, brilliant songwriter, fierce feminist
and a generous heart. A line from one of Amelia's songs pushes us all to action:
What will you be building when you have to go? Has she ever been building!
In
addition to her phenomenal song writing, she has been collaborating with people
all over the province to bravely address the stigma that surrounds mental
health.
Springing from the extraordinary response that she received last year from
thisvideo.ca she and her team just launched their newest initiative. It's Mental
is a fantastic grassroots project inspiring citizen action to de-stigmatize
mental health perceptions and improve the mental health care system.
Amelia
and her team are also building a documentary film to raise awareness and
encourage appropriate resources for mental health care. Bravo Amelia!
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Baie Verte Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize a thriving sport in my district. The Dorset
Collegiate Table Tennis Club was founded in 1992 by teacher sponsor and coach
Mark Warren. The club grew from a handful of eager young players playing on one
table at a school of 159 students, to a club today of up to 30 players, playing
high-calibre table tennis on eight tables.
The team
blossomed when it captured four consecutive School Sports Newfoundland and
Labrador provincial high school championships from 2005 to 2008. The team
recently captured its fourth consecutive Central West Regional Table Tennis
Championship as well as its second consecutive SSNL Provincial Table Tennis
Championship. So that's six of 12 SSNL provincial high school championships in
the last 12 years.
Club
members have participated in the last four Newfoundland and Labrador Winter
Games, the Canada Games in British Columbia, the North American Championships in
Washington, D.C. and the National Championships in Quebec.
Dorset
Collegiate is a small school, but its table tennis club is making big waves in
sport in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Dorset
Collegiate Table Tennis Club for its achievements.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
The Commemoration
of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel
MR. SPEAKER:
Honour 100. Today for Honour
100, we have the Member for the District of Carbonear Trinity Bay de Verde.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
now read into the record the following 40 names of those who lost their lives in
the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland
Naval Reserve, or the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine. This will be followed by a
moment of silence.
Lest we
forget: Hubert Victor Gullage, William F. Gullage, Ambrose Guy, Chester Cameron
Guy, James George W. Hagen, Albert Haines, John Halfyard, Silas Halfyard,
Wallace Halfyard, Gordon Archibald Haliburton, Abel Haliday, James Hall, Richard
Hugh Hall, William Hall, William Hall, Albert Hallett, Richard J. Hamen, Stewart
Hamlin, Alan Hancock, Albert Hancock, Eli Hancock, John Hancock, Louis Hancock,
Albert Hann, Brigham Hann, Fred Hann, George Hann, Robert Hann, William S. Hann,
Frank J. Hannon, Wilfred T. Harbin, Ernest William Harding, Herbert Harding,
William Harding, Edward Hardy, John Hardy, William Frank Hardy, Harvey Hare,
Frank Harnett, William Harnett.
(Moment
of silence.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Please be seated.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today in this hon. House to recognize the 90th birthday of Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II.
Her
Majesty has visited Newfoundland and Labrador numerous times during her reign
and our people have a strong sense of pride and connection to the royal family.
Mr.
Speaker, in 1959, Her Majesty and Prince Philip visited the province as part of
a Canada-wide tour. In 1978, her visit to the province included several
highlights such as turning the sod for what became the Queen Elizabeth II
Library at Memorial University and again, in 1997, Her Majesty celebrated the
500th anniversary of the landfall of John Cabot.
There
are various examples of Her Majesty's impact on our province including the
naming of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, which received its royal prefix
from Queen Elizabeth II in 1979, and the Royal St. John's Regatta, which has the
Queen as its patron and received its royal prefix from her in 1993.
Mr.
Speaker, today we recognize and thank her for her service to the Commonwealth
and for serving over the past 64 years with agility and poise.
On
behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I wish Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth
II a happy 90th birthday and continued health and happiness.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Premier for the advance copy of his statement today. We join with Members
opposite and all Members of the House of Assembly, as well as all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all Canadians, in wishing Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II a very happy 90th birthday.
As the
Premier alluded to, Canadians and particularly the people from Newfoundland and
Labrador have a real sense of pride and connection with Queen Elizabeth and the
royal family. It is obvious, as referenced by the Premier, the importance and
the highlights and the focus that we've put on Queen Elizabeth in her reign.
In
Conception Bay South where I live, there is Queen Elizabeth Regional High and
the Premier mentioned the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. I think there's only
seven police forces in the world that have the designation as royal and we have
two of them right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Again, I
thank the Premier and we extend and join in best wishes to Queen Elizabeth II.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the Premier for the advance copy of his statement. I'm quite pleased to
stand with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition in wishing Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth congratulations on her 90th birthday. I just thought of
something; I live in a part of the city where Prince Philip Drive is to the
north of me and Elizabeth Avenue to the south. I couldn't help but say that.
I think
everyone can agree that her dedication to the people of her Commonwealth and the
world, her work ethic and her decades of experience are an inspiration to us
all.
Thirteen
Canadian prime ministers starting with Louis St. Laurent, quite a career that no
Canadian politician can match, Mr. Speaker. We hope she continues to enjoy many
more years.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
recognize tomorrow as Earth Day, a time to reflect and acknowledge the need for
environmental education and action.
Earth
Day is particularly significant this year. In December 2015, all countries
adopted the Paris Agreement to enhance global action to fight climate change and
which aims to limit global temperature increase 2 degrees Celsius and ideally to
under 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Canada
played an active part in negotiating this agreement and committed to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Since then,
First Ministers, including our Premier, met and agreed to develop a pan-Canadian
framework to tackle climate change. Newfoundland and Labrador is part of this
work.
Tomorrow
in New York, the United Nations is convening a signing ceremony for the Paris
Agreement. Leaders from 155 countries, including Prime Minister Trudeau, will
sign the agreement.
Mr.
Speaker, we must all work together to reduce our carbon footprint to create a
cleaner environment for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians show their commitment to the environment every
day through recycling in their homes, workplaces and classrooms, driving
fuel-efficient cars and buying energy-efficient appliances.
I
encourage all Members of this hon. House and all people of the province to
reflect on what further action they can take in their homes and businesses to
help combat climate change.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. We want to recognize
tomorrow, April 22, as Earth Day as well.
Mr.
Speaker, there is plenty we can do as residents to help make the world around us
a greener place to live, from walking to the corner store instead of driving,
picking up litter everywhere and can be involved in helping protect our
environment. Other green tips include using recycled shopping bags, reusable
water bottles, recycling paper containers, composting at home and so much more.
Climate
change is important, Mr. Speaker, and I encourage the government to work
collaboratively with industry during our fragile economy when we talk about
carbon tax and whatnot.
So, Mr.
Speaker, the list of ways we can improve our environment is endless, and I thank
those groups encouraging us to live greener lives and I encourage everyone to
continue to be mindful of how their actions impact the world and environment
around us.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Every year on April 22
more than a billion people in 200 countries mark Earth Day with events in
support of protecting the environment.
Earth
Day encourages people to make changes in their own lives, such as recycling,
carpooling, and not buying bottled water, but Earth Day is also important for
what governments must do.
Tomorrow, the Paris Agreement will be signed for a global action plan to limit
global warming. Our people want our government to take leadership
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
and commit to reducing
emissions and to help people make changes in their lives.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday, outside the House of Assembly, the Premier stated that
seniors making $15,000-$17,000 will be better off because of their Liberal
budget. Now, I'm not sure that he'd say the same for a hardworking
Newfoundlander or Labradorian who is earning say $25,000. He also said the
Liberal budget contains good support for our low-income earners.
So I ask
the Premier: Where's your evidence to support your statements, which I suggest
are completely out of touch?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, as
you know, in the budget that we released in this House just about a week ago or
so now, there are a number of tax increases and revenue increases in the
province. Offsetting to that, there was an Income Supplement or support program
that was put in place at $76.4 million. That program is meant to offset some of
the tax revenues that were put in place that would affect people, like seniors
in our province.
The
taxes that were put in place last week, Mr. Speaker, as you know, if you compare
the tax rates to personal income tax increases and the levy included, it really
puts us in the vicinity of a 2006-2007 tax level. As a matter of fact, we are
below the tax rates in 2006-2007.
The levy
that the former premier mentioned, I will say, it is a temporary measure put in
place because of the current fiscal situation that we face as a province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we're hearing differently from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are
low-income earners but work very, very hard to earn that income. They've sat
down and went through the hundreds of fee increases, the levy and tax increases,
and they're clearly stating they're not better off.
So I ask
the Premier once again: Where's your evidence, and will you table that evidence
here in the House of Assembly?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're
happy to table the documentation related to the budget and as it relates to the
impact on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We're also more than willing to give
briefings to the Members opposite and to the Third Party. This information is
out there. We are more than happy to share that with the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
The
impacts, we know these are significant impacts on the people of our province.
This is a very difficult situation that we are facing financially in our
province right now but it was important to us to put in measures to offset some
of those increases. Some of those, as I mentioned earlier, is the Income
Supplement that we put in place at $76.4 million. But, yes, the information is
readily available and we are more than willing to share it with you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the invitation for a briefing but it's the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador that want to be briefed and want the information as well. He should
consider how he's going to brief the people of the province.
Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday afternoon the Premier also made a statement that if people
looked into the crystal ball they would understand why they made the choices
that they've made. He went on to say that their budget is simply not the way
it's been portrayed. Now we know that the Finance Minister for days ahead of the
budget had told the province there's nothing good in this budget.
Can the
Premier tell the people of the province how the heavy handed Liberal levy, the
hundreds of tax and fee increases represents a fair budget? What is it that the
people are not understanding?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well the
budget of last week is $8.48 billion. What I was talking about last week, there
are a number of initiatives in there that will bring improvements to
municipalities, infrastructure improvements around the province in the vicinity
of some $570 million. There are some good things in this budget I will say, Mr.
Speaker. These are unprecedented times that we face as a province.
I think
the Member opposite is forgetting that for the last 12 years there was $25
billion. I think they lived in the situation that at least they managed in a
situation where they felt that oil would continue to go on; yet, C-NLOPB and
others have made it quite clear that the production levels and the reserves
offshore would continue to fall, which is why we find ourselves in this
difficult situation that we're facing.
We would
have been at a $2.7 billion deficit. That burden would have been placed squarely
on the shoulders of everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Not once
has the Premier said what school should not have been built, what hospital
should not have been built, what roads should not have been built.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, not once. Not
once has the Premier picked out which school or which facility should not have
been built.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe, and clearly believe, that people of our province clearly
understand what the Liberal choices in our budget, how it will impact them and
how it will impact their families.
Mr.
Speaker, we are hearing from hundreds of people. I know all MHAs are, people who
are fearful and people who have lost their trust in this government.
I ask
the Premier: You made a statement that the budget has not been properly told,
can you explain to the people of the province the investments into your budget
that will make their individual lives better?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
back in 2007 and beyond there were some decisions, if the former premier wants
to know about decisions. Back in 2007 there were some decisions made about tax
decreases.
As a
matter of fact, if the former premier, the Opposition Leader, would only come
forward with this, the decreases that his government made were at the higher end
of the scale, I would say, Mr. Speaker. If you go back and look at the evidence
and the facts, he made their decreases at the upper end of the scale.
If you
want to know something you couldn't afford, it was the tax decreases that you
put in place in 2007 and beyond. They just were not sustainable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So it's
clear the Premier can't tell us what's good in his budget, but wants to go back
to decreasing the burden on taxpayers that the government prior to me I wasn't
even here in 2007 did for the people in 2007 when they reduced the burden to
help drive the economy.
Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal levy, which his government has burdened the people of the
province with, is simply unfair. A person earning $25,000 a year is just barely
making ends meet and now has to pay an additional $300, while a person making
$450,000 a year or more only pays $900.
I ask
the Premier: How were these levy amounts determined? Is it fair to put the
burden on our lowest and hardest working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me
begin by saying first the former premier, now Leader of the Opposition, was in
place through a significant number of budgets that actually continued to support
the decreased tax measures that your government put in place at the higher
income earners, Mr. Speaker. That's who you gave the tax breaks to. You had the
opportunity and you did not do it.
First of
all, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the thresholds
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
that we see there, I want
to go back to where the thresholds would be in terms of the levy and the
personal income tax rates that we now have in our province, which is very
competitive in Atlantic Canada. These measures that we put in place, I can
assure you there is not one Member on this side of the House of Assembly liked
what we had to do last week. When we looked at the other options that we had
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
The other options that we
had, when you look at the out years that's an impact of the poor planning and
the mismanagement of this previous administration. They did not prepare for
these days. They were not sustainable decisions that they made.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
quite clear this levy has not been very well thought out. We know and people of
the province know it's unfair. Combined with the hundreds of new taxes and fees
that the Liberals chose to introduce, it's taxes that people cannot afford to
pay.
Last
year, we added higher income tax brackets. We added new tax brackets so higher
income earners would pay more, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is on record as
suggesting that the rich pay enough in this province.
I ask
the Premier: Will you reconsider your levy? Will you remove your levy from this
budget that's unfairly burdening the lower- and middle-income hard workers of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the former premier, if he read the budget, he would know this is a temporary
levy. When I go back to, if we take the example of a senior couple in
Newfoundland and Labrador
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
with taxable income of
around $26,000, the net impact of the budget, which includes, when you put in
the offsets around the personal income tax and the levy, plus the consumption
tax that would be in the HST the net impact would be $310.
So we
will clearly outline and share this information with anyone who is interested in
having this discussion, because we too want to get the facts out. We also want
to get the facts out why we are in the situation we're in. And if we took no
action at all, I'd also like to tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians where we
would be today after $25 billion in oil and oil revenues that you had to deal
with and did not prepare for where we are today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yeah, I
remind him, it could be temporary. If he allows the Members in his party to vote
freely with the people that elected them, Mr. Speaker, it may be temporary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has
stated that no one anticipated the deficit. He said the environment is not the
same one as it was when he knocked on the doors of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians last fall and made numerous promises he's broken to them.
Mr.
Speaker, Budget 2015 indicated a $1.2 billion deficit and if the oil fell, it
would get worse, and it's exactly what happened oil fell for months after.
So I ask
the Premier: What was your plan to address the deficit of $1.2 billion? Did you
base your campaign promises on that $1.2 billion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Absolutely we put a platform
in place based on where we were and what we knew at the time. I'll keep going
back to the former premier who refused to answer the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, refused to answer me back on September 28 when I asked him for the
fiscal update, when we also got in there and started looking at some of the
information, I would say, Mr. Speaker.
When you
look at the budget they put to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the
out years they included revenue from a project that's not even done in this
province right now from oil revenues they do not have a development for. That
was the kind of budget and materials and the information that former
administration put to the people of our province. They were wrong; they couldn't
even get the first year right, let alone the fifth and sixth year right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, we
also laid out our budget last year; for every dollar the oil fell, they'd lose
$29 million in revenue. Maybe the current Premier should have spent a little bit
of time doing a bit of math and he would have figured out the deficit was
higher.
So, Mr.
Speaker, the Premier just said he did have a plan for $1.2 billion.
Premier:
Will you table that plan here so the people of the province can see it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
interestingly enough, the former premier did campaign, I believe, in the same
election we were in the last time around. I did not hear him say once that the
mid-year update was $1.8 billion. As a matter of fact, he stood by his five-year
plan. I can tell you every single target, every revenue target, the expense
target that he put out in his election platform, as a matter of a fact, he did
not meet any of them. Even on the long-term care initiative and program that he
put in place, there was no revenue there or no expense revenue put in their
election platform for all of that.
There
was a lot of information that we became aware of
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
and I will say the mid-year
update, $1.8 billion, not once did the former premier trying to distance himself
from his own plan, his own five-year plan and we now know that was erroneous.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member
opposite is the Premier today. What I asked him to do is would he table his $1.2
billion plan. If you cut through all of the rhetoric, as normally happens when
the Premier speaks, you cut through all of the rhetoric, what he said was he
will not table his $1.2 billion plan. Because he doesn't have a plan, Mr.
Speaker, that's why.
Mr.
Speaker, the Finance Minister criticized the 2015 budget for taxing and she
stated that our plan was to take from those who could least afford it. She went
on to say that their plan, the Liberal plan, would be more than just simply,
well, taxing and borrowing. That's what she said.
Last
Thursday she tabled a tax-heavy budget here in the province for the people of
the province like never seen before.
I ask
the Premier: Why has your party's position on taxing and fee increases
flip-flopped only five months after taking office?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're
more than happy with the election platform that we ran on and is still online,
and you're more than happy to do that. I would also say at the same time that we
should also discuss your election platform that you ran on too, I say to the
Member opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, these are
difficult times in our province, and we know that. If no action was taken in
this current budget, in the fifth and sixth year what you would be seeing in our
province is in excess of $2 billion in debt-servicing charges. Already this
year, debt servicing outpaces and we will pay more for debt servicing than we do
for education.
Mr.
Speaker, as a result of the budget last week, we are back to 2006-2007 tax
levels in our province. That includes the levy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today in
our province 219 people, 219 families are waiting for long-term care. Some of
them are lying in acute care beds in our hospitals, resulting in more cancelled
surgeries, and more people are lying on stretchers in hallways in our hospitals
as a result.
I ask
the Minister of Health and Community Services: Can he tell us how many people
are in our hospitals today who have already been medically discharged?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
The
exact number of ALC patients varies literally hour by hour. My understanding, in
terms of long-term care, they differ also. I cannot supply him with today's
figures, but if he gives me a particular hour of the day for which he would like
them, I will endeavour to table them tomorrow.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll ask
again. I appreciate the fact that the numbers change by the hour, the minister
is correct, but could he give us an idea of the average, say, for the past week
or the past month even?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
The
average percentage in this hospital for ALC patients in acute care varies
between 18 and 27 per cent on a day-by-day basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
I thank the minister for the
answer. So there are roughly 219 people waiting for long-term care beds today.
Some of those people are tying up acute care beds. They are the ALC patients
that the minister refers to tying up 18 to 27 per cent of our hospital beds at
any given time.
Now this
week, the Liberal government is shutting down 50 existing long-term care beds.
Our government had a plan to put more beds in the system while this government
is taking them out.
I ask
the minister: How can you justify closing beds when so many individuals and so
many families are waiting for proper, dignified care for our aging population?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member opposite is conflating two numbers. Alternate care level patients in
acute care are not automatically long-term care patients. Currently, the numbers
of people waiting for long-term care vary region by region.
For
example, as of the end of March in Eastern Health there were 67 people waiting
for long-term care. There are, as of yesterday, 68 vacant long-term care beds of
various kinds within Eastern Health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the minister
presented false information repeatedly last week. He clearly said that all
residents of Masonic Park Nursing Home would simply be moved to the Veterans
Pavilion. He said that in Question Period in this House.
However,
families found out Tuesday night that there are only 25 beds available at the
moment at the Veterans Pavilion. Some of the 40 Masonic Park residents will be
scattered around the region.
I ask
the minister: Why wouldn't he present accurate information to the families and
accurate information to the public? Why does he continue to deny that he is
shutting down desperately needed long-term care beds in this region?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
It's interesting the issue of
erroneous numbers have come up, because the gentleman opposite has just
presented the House with an erroneous set of figures. There are, or will be at
the time the transition plan is completed for Masonic Park, no less than 35 beds
in Veterans Pavilion.
As of
yesterday, 10 of the families in Masonic Park have expressed an interest in
placing their families elsewhere other than Veterans Pavilion. So the numbers he
gave don't add up either.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At least
the minister is finally acknowledging that his numbers don't add up. Mr.
Speaker, the numbers that the minister is now providing are different than the
numbers that Eastern Health provided to families about 48 hours ago. That is
rather concerning that the numbers have changed since Tuesday night.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't know if the minister has had a chance to visit Masonic Park.
The facility is in good shape. Tuesday night, Eastern Health said that about
$500,000 is needed to be invested in improvements. The minister in this House
said about a million dollars.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll acknowledge that every long-term care facility in this region
needs capital improvements, Masonic Park is no exception. But now, the Liberal
government, under this budget, has gutted the repairs and renovations budget for
this year.
Can the
minister provide the data to support his decision to shut down the long-term
care beds at Masonic Park?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
It's interesting and slightly
ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman opposite, who not that long ago occupied
this chair, should talk about gutting renovations budgets when he did a number
on the Health Sciences Centre, for example, in terms of a reduction in
renovations budgets as well as across the province, cutting it by about 25 per
cent.
On the
issue of Masonic Park, I accept it's a very difficult situation to have to move
elderly patients and clients. I understand that and I accept that, Mr. Speaker.
However, there is a huge opportunity here to provide state-of-the-art care in a
newer facility and save the system $1.8 million, at least, on an annual basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
the minister has raised the issue of the $1.8 million in potential savings. Mr.
Speaker, I've had the opportunity to review the recent financial statements of
Masonic Park Nursing Home. Most costs associated with the home, of course, are
salaries, medications and other resident services, none of which are going to be
eliminated with the move. It is impossible to save $1.8 million by shutting down
long-term care beds at Masonic Park.
Will the
minister produce detailed evidence of this projected cost savings?
He
won't, Mr. Speaker, because he can't.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much.
It's
interesting that a department run by the gentleman opposite, until not so long
ago, has some very interesting magic mathematics in their budgets where money
has been put in and then removed and people have not had the opportunity to
realize the savings that they were told to.
Having
said that, as far as Masonic Park is concerned, I would be happy to find the
figures from Eastern Health and discuss them at any time with the Member
opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
So, Mr. Speaker, the minister
is acknowledging that he does not have the detailed information to substantiate
his claim that there will be $1.8 million of savings, he has to go get it from
Eastern Health.
I ask
the minister: Will he go get that information in a timely fashion and table it
in this House of Assembly?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
I wouldn't have thought
anyone needed to quite put words in my mouth, Mr. Speaker, but if he wants to
try, then that's fine.
From my
point of view, the information I am quite happy to discuss with the Member for
his constituents at any time of his choosing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
So, for the record, Mr.
Speaker, the minister is willing to discuss it with me, and I'm grateful for
that opportunity, and I'll take him up on that; however, he's not willing to
provide this information to the people of the province, to the families
affected, or to the hon. Members in this House of Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, when Masonic Park Nursing Home was taken over by the regional health
authority in 1996 there was a complete inventory taken of the assets of the
building. The agreement with the non-profit owners of the facility states that
upon giving notice to terminate the agreement comparable inventory must be left
in the building. All beds, all equipment must remain in the building.
If
that's the case, Mr. Speaker, and considering the ongoing renovations that are
now happening at Veterans Pavilion, what is the true cost of this ridiculous
move by the Liberal government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
I have explained to the
gentleman opposite that I will be quite happy to discuss the matter of finances
with him at the time of his choosing, and I will do that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Not only
are people upset with the minister in Bay Roberts, but also in Mobile,
Clarenville, Gander, Paradise, CBS the list goes on and on. Ironically, it
wasn't that long ago that the Minister of Education stood and petitioned
government to intercede and ensure the school in Whitbourne remained open.
I ask
the minister: You gave great reasons in your petition why it should remain open,
do I need to remind you of your past arguments? Why the flip-flop now?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, we've had a lot
of questions in the House of Assembly about the role of the school district and
the government in the reorganization of schools, so I'm not going to revisit any
of that.
Everybody here in the House of Assembly understands how difficult this is for
people who have children attending Whitbourne Elementary, or any other of the
schools that the board of trustees for the English language school districts
decided to close. It's not lost on anybody here, but this is the job of the
trustees to try to make efficient use of public funds.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
The decision has been made.
If anyone would like to appeal that, there are processes they can use to appeal
that as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
But the decision has been
made and it won't be revisited here because it was not made in here.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It was
obvious when the Finance Minister's extraordinary attack on Nalcor during the
Budget Speech that government had for some time lost confidence in the
leadership of Nalcor.
I ask
the Premier: Why did government not go about an orderly transition instead of
throwing the province into the turmoil which has flowed from the minister's
intemperate remarks?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We all
understand the impact that the Crown agency and Nalcor have on the people of our
province. On Sunday night I met with Mr. Martin and again at a later meeting he
decided, and through the conversation, that he would step down. It wasn't upon
me or any Member of this House of Assembly, I would suggest, that you would
leave a significant agency, a corporation like Nalcor with a megaproject ongoing
in Labrador, with lots of lines of business in our province and a significant
impact as we have seen on our budget.
What we
did was react fast. We put in place today a new CEO which comes with a
tremendous amount of experience. We did what we had to do to make sure that the
people that are working at Nalcor and the projects that they are involved in
continues in a very stabilized fashion I say, 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 hope
the Premier doesn't think that people aren't smart enough to know that they've
been months making this happen and forcing it to happen.
The EY
review of Muskrat Falls was an opportunity to answer some important questions
for the people of the Province.
I ask
the Premier: Why was EY not instructed to analyze the pros and cons of
continuing with the project in light of the massive cost overruns and other
challenges thereby speeding up this process?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We asked
EY to do an analysis of the cost and the schedule associated risk of the Muskrat
Falls Project. This was something that was important. Near the end of May, late
May this year, you will see some re-baselining of the project, which is
important for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to get an understanding of where
it fits within its own budget. It's also important to get an understanding on
the schedule, which affects reliability on our province right now.
I think
the actions and the activities that we have seen in the last couple of days with
Mr. Martin stepping down, the release that we had today with a new leader put in
place, a new CEO in place, was a tremendous experience. He is willing to step up
to help his province, I would say, Mr. Speaker, and will be making decisions
very shortly to put in place a board of directors so the activities of Nalcor
can continue in a very stabilized fashion.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for St. John's
East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
newly appointed CEO of Nalcor has expressed great concern about the project in
the past, as have the people of the province.
Will the
Premier instruct the CEO to release real information about the state of the
Muskrat Falls Project as soon as possible?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for her concern for this project. All Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians have expressed a significant amount of concern in the last few
weeks and months and really leading into this.
What we
do know is that the new CEO that's in place today made it quite clear that he
would go into his office and he would go in and meet with the leadership team.
He would look at the facts, the opinions and the information that's available on
the overall project.
I am not
about to interfere with his decision making. He is going to go in, be the person
that he needs to be, provide the leadership that he can bring to this project.
Based on that, he will put his opinion in place on what is best to do for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for St. John's
East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Surely
if the Premier can give mandate letters to his ministers, he can give a mandate
letter to the CEO of our own corporation. Mr. Speaker, the contract with Emera
for the Maritime Link sets up the potential for privatizing Muskrat Falls.
Is the
new CEO appointment the first step towards getting rid of Muskrat Falls at a
basement bargain price?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for a very quick
question.
The
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
I ask the Premier to back
that no up with some concrete evidence.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
answer the question here. The new CEO of Nalcor is gone into Nalcor. His
responsibility will be to lead that organization. He will base his own opinion
on what he believes and thinks will be the best way forward for Nalcor and our
province. That does not include privatization of Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax, placing a higher
tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and
WHEREAS
surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only, as currently
demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other
countries; and
WHEREAS
government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax
schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure the Deficit Reduction Levy be
eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation
principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador
provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, we've been getting as I'm sure every Member in this House of Assembly
has been getting, because many of us have been copied by people who are talking
about how very difficult this Deficit Reduction Levy is on their own personal
incomes, and how regressive the current tax regime that government has
introduced is on the lives of people.
We know
that as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are a resilient people. We all know
how tough this fiscal situation is. Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, every
person in Newfoundland and Labrador is willing to roll up their sleeves and do
their part to get us through this fiscal situation.
Mr.
Speaker, this government has done nothing to lead us forward. In fact, what
they're doing is that they're choking people who are already having a hard time
making ends meet. Instead of taking us forward, this is taking the people of the
province backwards. I'm sure that's not the intention, but I believe that is the
consequence of this particular approach to our fiscal crisis.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a short note from a constituent that just arrived today, an
elderly gentleman. He says: If this goes ahead, I'll have to leave Newfoundland
and Labrador. I'm not getting enough money to pay my bills and live. There's
months I can't pay my drugs; every month I have to do without something. It's a
hand-written note, Mr. Speaker, I'm only getting $1,300 a month old age pension.
There's rent, drugs for wife and I. She's not getting any income, so it's hard.
I also have children living away. One daughter was going to come back and get
married and is rethinking that due to the budget.
Mr.
Speaker, we would hope that government would instill hope, not desperation. I
hope that this government will listen to the desperate pleas of the people of
the province.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
shame that I have to stand here and present this today, but I will present this
petition on behalf of the residents of Harbour Grace Port de Grave District.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. P. PARSONS:
To the hon. House of Assembly
of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the
petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
we, the undersigned, require a primary school to service Bay Roberts, Coley's
Point, Port de Grave, Bareneed, Shearstown and Butlerville areas; and
WHEREAS
our leaders act to ensure that a new school is made a priority, primary children
are overpopulated in the classrooms and there are health and safety risks in the
current 60-year-old facility; and
WHEREAS
the process for a new school has to be started right away to ensure our
primary-aged children receive a quality educational facility; and
WHEREAS
there are issues in the present facility with no air ventilation, overpopulated
classrooms, no windows, natural lighting and office spaces, no designated
cafeteria with children eating in classrooms and portable classrooms that will
take up the mandated active play area;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to begin the process of building a new primary
school for this area.
Mr.
Speaker, we know, and it's very, very unfortunate this is a 60-year-old
facility. This has been a problem for years and years. As a matter of fact, we
have a letter here by a hired consultant by the Department of Education back in
2007, and I quote: the school has exceeded its life expectancy and usefulness.
For
three past budgets, Mr. Speaker, money has been allocated by this previous
administration to replace Coley's Point Primary. Again, it's a 60-year-old
facility. The student population is 350-plus. This has been ongoing for years
and years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. P. PARSONS:
As a matter of fact,
ironically, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here that was dated October 30, 2015,
by then Education minister Susan Sullivan to the mayor of Bay Roberts: I am
writing to this time confirm that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is
committed to the school, to replace the school in Coley's Point Primary. We know
this did not happen.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. P. PARSONS:
We find ourselves in the
situation now, it is a very unfortunate situation, but as the Member for Harbour
Grace Port de Grave, I am committed to fighting for my constituents.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker doesn't want to name Members, but if Members are not respecting the
authority of the House the Speaker will have no choice.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I guess
the Member is not going to vote for the budget because there was no announcement
in this year's budget for it. So that's good to hear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, to the 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
the Deficit Reduction Levy as introduced in Budget 2016 unfairly targets the
middle class; and
WHEREAS
the Deficit Reduction Levy also asks low-income earners to pay more than their
fair share instead of increasing taxes to high income owners;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge this government to immediately stop the introduction of the
temporary Deficit Reduction Levy.
Mr.
Speaker, we're hearing from everyone. We're hearing from people all across this
Island, all over the place. I know every message I'm getting on Facebook I've
received more messages since this budget came down than I've ever received in
the last eight years I've been in this House of Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, I like to be fair, and fair to people. I think that's the name of the
game, we should all be fair. This levy is so unfair. It's unfair to the poor
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at this, here is a person or a family that's making
$25,000 a year and they are expected to pay $300.
AN HON. MEMBER:
No way.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes they are. If you look at
your own thing it shows $300. It's not wrong. That's what's wrote here on this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
People from $25,000 to
$36,000 pay $300. It's right here in your document.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER:
You're supposed to sit down
when the Speaker stands up
MR. K. PARSONS:
I don't listen to you
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Well, the Speaker is
standing, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis.
I am not
going to allow Members of the House to disregard and disrespect the authority of
the House. I've recognized the Member for Cape St. Francis. I ask for order in
the House.
The
Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, listen, this is
about fairness. It's about being fair to people.
I've
received calls and emails from people in all the districts, in the other
districts in this province, and they all tell me the same thing; this is so
unfair. How can you justify that a person of $25,000 a year is going to pay
about 2 per cent of their income, versus a person who's making $200,000,
$300,000 pay 0.18 or 0.15 per cent? It's just an unfair tax.
I ask
the government, I really ask you to think about it, and all the backbenchers and
everybody in this House of Assembly are getting emails; you're getting people's
concern. People are really concerned about this tax. Do the proper thing and
cancel it.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax, placing a higher
tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and
WHEREAS
surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only, as currently
demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other
countries; and
WHEREAS
government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax
schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure the Deficit Reduction Levy be
eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation
principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador
provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
I'm
quite pleased this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to be able to do what I've been
promising the people of the province, and that is to present the voice of the
people, especially the ones who have signed this petition I have in my hands
today. Our responsibility as MHAs is to present the concerns of the people of
the province. That's why we stand here.
Mr.
Speaker, it was just today a senior came to me when I was outside in the
community and said: Ms. Michael, I have one question. Do they stop to think
about our lives? Do they meaning the government stop to think about the
burdens that we carry as seniors? She started to talk to me about what it was
like to be a senior who is now widowed her husband has been dead for seven
years and that every year since he's died life has become harder for her.
We have
a system both provincially and federally but we'll talk about our provincial
that is so circuitous and so difficult that trying to work your way through the
system with regard to your income tax, with regard to your government pensions,
the OAS and CPP, and the way in which we claw money back from people's personal
pensions, we don't stop to think about what's happening to seniors, Mr. Speaker.
The thing that she said and raised was: And then, Ms. Michael, there's that
Deficit Reduction Levy. What are they thinking about?
No
matter who speaks to me and we have all these signatures that are coming in on
a regular basis from people asking the same thing: What were they thinking
about? It hits middle income to low income. Then, when you think about fixed
income and this is what this government doesn't seem to think about at all.
Our seniors are on fixed incomes. Yes, they may have pensions but
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
be happy to speak again and present these concerns.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
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
Budget 2016 decreased the amount of funding available for health care services;
and
WHEREAS
as a result of Budget 2016, Eastern Health has reduced routine breast cancer
screening in women aged 40 to 49; and
WHEREAS
early detection of cancer results is the best prognosis possible;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to direct Eastern Health to reverse its decision
and to ensure that the population-based Breast Screening Program is accessible
to women aged 40 to 49.
Mr.
Speaker, we're all very upset with Budget 2016. I go to bed every night and pray
that the Members opposite will have the courage to stand up and vote against it
and vote with the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We just
listened to the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi talk about the direct impact
it's having on people's lives. People may die as a result of this move, that's
how serious this is.
Early
detection of breast cancer makes all the difference in a woman's survival rate.
Many of these women have young children. They all have friends and families who
love and care for them. To take such a backwards step when it comes to women's
health is absolutely deplorable, Mr. Speaker. I truly hope that this decision is
reversed and reversed in short order.
There's
no price tag we can put on a person's life. It was their own member opposite,
who represents us in Ottawa today, who stood in this House year after year after
year, a person who experienced breast cancer herself and lobbied for the breast
cancer screening to take place, Mr. Speaker, at the age of 40. We did that. The
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the women of this province deserve no
less. I would say almost every single day I get an email from women in this who
are under the age of 50 and they're looking for breast cancer screening, or
they've already been diagnosed.
It's
becoming a problem, and it's an issue that's confronting women's health. Our
health, Mr. Speaker, is just as important as anyone else's in this province. I
call upon the Minister of Health and the Members of Executive Council to reverse
this budget, many components of it, including this one.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I call
Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
We'll
call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd
normally get up and say it gives me pleasure to rise to speak to a bill or a
motion in this House, but I don't think there's anybody in this House and I
say this sincerely. I don't think there's anybody in this House who can stand
with pleasure and talk about this budget. When you have Cabinet ministers and
the media saying it's a bad budget, you know you have reason to be concerned.
Anyway,
as Opposition Members we will have multiple opportunities during the budget
debate to get up and talk about specifics in the budget, to talk about how it
impacts people in our districts, to talk about any element of the budget or its
implications that we wish. I intend to use my initial time today to just
highlight some of the things that are in the budget.
There's
been a lot of focus on some specific elements that are perhaps the most
controversial, but there's a wide range of cuts and changes that will impact
people, that will impact some of our most vulnerable people, our children and
youth, and families and seniors and communities. I think the government has
rightly acknowledged there's nobody in this province who won't be impacted
negatively by this budget.
I
realize we live in challenging times economically, Mr. Speaker, and I realize
we're far too dependent on oil revenue. Nobody could have predicted what has
happened to oil prices over the last year or so, but, Mr. Speaker, it's very
easy to get into finger pointing and to try and lay blame. I can tell you that
those of us who were part of the most recent administration do take
responsibility for the decisions we had to make. That's part of what happens
when you govern. I recognize Members opposite now face that reality as well,
that you must stand and take responsibility for the decisions that you make.
The
blame game is a silly one, because there are some factors that were, in
fairness, beyond the control of this government in terms of oil prices. Some of
those external factors were beyond our control as well, but we do have the
ability to make choices today. We do have the ability to make decisions today
that will impact the people that we represent in each of our communities.
When I'm
talking to my constituents, and I know from talking to colleagues opposite, that
everybody is feeling the heat, and rightly so. Even Opposition Members are
receiving a vast number of emails and phone calls and letters and petitions.
More so than I ever recall in my eight years in this hon. House, because I think
people are legitimately upset. I think people are angry. I think they feel
betrayed and I think they feel like they've been lied to, Mr. Speaker.
I think
the really unfortunate part of the entire situation, and it's fine even in
Question Period today the Premier talked repeatedly about our choices and our
record and our spending. We'll take responsibility for all of that. I am happy
to talk to any constituent and anybody else in the province about some of the
decisions we had to make during our time in office.
The fact
remains, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals knew the financial situation this
province was in when they made all kinds of irresponsible, reckless election
promises. Members like to give me a hard time about my use of social media. I've
been watching the public discourse in various social media channels. One of the
things that's been most striking in the last few days is the posting of actual
quotes, even video clips and formal advertisements that were presented by
Liberal candidates and the Liberal leader during the recent election campaign.
I
understand why people are upset. I understand why people do feel betrayed. I
realize it's a very emotional time for everyone. So for that reason I'd like to
use most of my time today to just talk about the facts of the budget and some of
the things that jumped out to me as I heard the Budget Speech and as I've been
reflecting on it and following the public discourse in recent days. It's clear
that people are hurting. We're certainly taking our share of criticism as well.
One of
the things I have had to remind people in recent days respectfully is that
because one of the things that has been presented to me over and over again,
face to face and in social media, especially, is: Well, what was your plan?
You're criticizing this Liberal plan or lack of a plan and this budget, which is
extremely right wing and aggressive, and will impact every person living in
Newfoundland and Labrador and will also have a devastating impact on our
economy. People are saying: What was your plan?
Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to remind people that we did present a plan. We did have a
sustainability plan. We did have a platform. We did present a budget last year.
We were very honest and clear about the situation we found ourselves in.
Granted, given declining oil prices, that situation over the last 12 months has
worsened considerably. That would have meant that even our plan would have
required adjustments in order to deal with the enormous fiscal challenge that
the province now faces.
We had a
plan. We presented that plan to the people and, frankly, they didn't like it.
Frankly, the people of this province sent a strong message that they wanted
change. They listened carefully to what Liberal candidates were promising and to
what the Liberal leader was promising. I think they took him at his word. They
took candidates at their word.
The
budget was known. The financial situation of the province was well known. As the
Leader of the Opposition stated in Question Period today, there's a
multi-million dollar impact every time a barrel of oil drops by $1 a barrel in
the world markets. It is regrettable and it is unfortunate that we're so
dependent on natural resource revenue. That's why we spent an enormous effort
and I believe that the new government will continue this effort to try and
diversify the economy in a number of key sectors.
We did
make progress when it came to the tourism sector jumps to mind and the great
strides we've made over the last decade. Ocean technology there are all kinds
of specific sectors being targeted by Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural
Development that is producing results. We do have the potential to grow the
economy, but unfortunately this budget is not about any of that. This budget is
about some choices that are now being made that are completely inconsistent with
what was promised to the people of the province back in the fall. It's affecting
everybody.
I think
it is important that we focus on facts. I understand that people are emotional
and they have a right to be. I understand people are upset and they have a right
to be. In this Chamber, when we're debating this budget, and where every Member
on both sides of the House will have to stand and be counted, then even through
this process we all have a choice to make, Mr. Speaker.
There's
been some public call for a free vote. I recognize the implications of that.
I've served on the government side and I know that this is a confidence vote
which means that government could fall if the majority of Members of this House
did not vote to support the budget. That puts the Premier and the new government
in a challenging position to say the least.
But we
all have to stand and be counted and we're all going to have individual choices
to make. The choice for the New Democratic Party or for the PC Party is a rather
easy one. We know what we would have done, we campaigned on it and we were
honest about it. For the Members opposite, though, it's a different challenge
altogether.
I think
it's important we try and get past the blame game and talk about the actual
merits of this budget and the implications it is going to have on people. For
every Member, it means different things. I've been speaking passionately for the
last number of days inside this House and outside the House about the decision
to close Masonic Park Nursing Home. A measure that's being taken by Eastern
Health, endorsed obviously by the Department of Health and Communities and the
Liberal government.
I can
honestly stand here and tell you that I believe based on all of the information
that was available to me in the past year and all of the information that's been
available to me in recent days that it is the wrong decision. But I'll also say
I recognize, having sat in one of those chairs opposite in recent times, that
some of those choices that need to be made around the future of our health care
system are very near impossible ones.
We had a
plan to bring the system towards sustainability and there are many difficult
decisions that we as a province face in order to get there. I sincerely wish the
minister well in pursuing some of those choices and decisions because a 1.5 per
cent cut to Eastern Health's budget is not in any way going to achieve
sustainability. It's a step, but there are many more steps to take before we get
to where we need to be, given our per capita level of health care spending.
In this
particular instance, I don't believe the evidence supports the decision. So I
have a choice to make and as a Member of the Opposition perhaps it's a little
easier to make that choice than it is for some of the Members that are sitting
opposite. I have to stand and speak for my constituents because there are now 40
residents of Masonic Park who are going to be displaced, who are vulnerable, who
are in the final years of their lives, many of whom are very attached to their
current living environment and it's very disruptive for those families as well.
On a
bigger scale, though, if I was to park the concerns of my individual
constituents for a moment and look at the bigger picture, which I acknowledge
the minister and the Cabinet and the government has to do, then I'm still
concerned. What we're talking about in this particular individual decision is a
reduction overall in the number of long-term care beds in this region.
The
minister and I had an animated discussion about it during Question Period. I
will accept his invitation to sit down and have a further conversation about the
numbers and where they come from because I do have a hard time believing them,
Mr. Speaker, having been through the financial statements of the home.
By
having spent the last 18 years visiting the home, I know what condition it's in.
I know some of the improvements that have been made in recent years to that
facility as well. I also have some appreciation perhaps not as much as the
minister who has a far more extensive background in health care than I do. I do
have some appreciation for the costs that are involved in running that facility
that are operating costs based on the number of patients, the number of beds,
and the staffing mix and the staffing ratios that are required to provide proper
care to those patients. Most of those costs are not going away.
I can't
stand and support a budget that's going to see long-term care beds reduced in
our province. I frankly don't believe anybody should. We've been talking for
years in this province about the need to grow long-term care beds and we had a
plan to do that as well.
I will
also agree with the minister that we need to do more to keep people in their
homes as long as possible. That is part of the
Close to Home strategy that we have
been working on for the last number of years. That effort needs to continue.
There's
some innovative work being done in the country and has started within Eastern
Health to advance a home first strategy, which is a great move and something
that we need to aggressively pursue. We have more of our personal care homes in
this province that are private facilities that provide excellent care to about
3,000 residents in this province that can do more in some cases, that can
provide an enhanced level of care. There's a pilot project that demonstrates
that it makes good sense.
Even if
you do all of those things, for the next two decades we are going to have a
shortage of long-term care beds. Even despite the fact that we've added hundreds
of new beds to the system over the last 10 years, we're still going to have a
shortage. We have a shortage today. We have a couple of hundred people waiting
today. Those numbers aren't going to get dramatically better any time soon.
There
may be weeks, there may be days, there may even be months where those numbers
improve because as the minister pointed out, it does fluctuate. Overall, based
on the population trends, based on our population that's getting older and
older, faster than the rest of the country, and sadly, a population that's
getting sicker and sicker, faster than the rest of the country, we can't avoid
the need to expand long-term care beds. So a decision to close 50 in this budget
is something that I can't stand here and support.
Now, I
did notice and I would be remiss if I didn't comment on it, Mr. Speaker. I
know that the Member for Port de Grave and I'm trying to remember the new
district name.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Harbour Grace Port de
Grave.
MR. KENT:
Carbonear Port de Grave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Harbour Grace.
MR. KENT:
Harbour Grace Port de
Grave, thank you. The change of district names is going to take those of us who
have been here a while some time to adapt to, I think.
On one
hand I'm glad to see the Member stand and raise concerns on behalf of her
constituents. That does take some courage, and I applaud that. I don't want to
be overly skeptical, Mr. Speaker, but then when I hear the government Members
who are all going to stand one by one and vote for this budget, a budget that
does not include replacing Coley's Point Elementary; they are all going to stand
and pat each other on the back today and applaud the Member's petition. But when
it truly matters, when the time comes to stand and be counted, will the Member
for Harbour Grace Port de Grave stand and vote for this budget that will not
address the needs of her constituents?
It is
fine to say, as she did today, with a great deal of passion, you have known
about this for years and you didn't do anything about it. Well, that's not true.
We made a decision. We made a commitment to build the school. We've built all
kinds of new schools in areas across the province, and not all in government
districts at the time. There have been schools built in various places where
they have been needed, based on aging infrastructure and based on the population
growth in certain areas of the province as well.
So we'll
stand by those decisions that we made. We knew that Coley's Point was a high
priority, and that's why we committed to getting it done and the groundwork had
been laid.
Now, I
know given the financial situation the new government faces, they can't
necessarily proceed with every single infrastructure project that was slated.
They are now, despite the fact that there's a limited amount of design work to
be done before tenders can be called on the Corner Brook hospital, the Liberal
government ironically has now chosen to delay the Corner Brook hospital, despite
the fact that over the last number of years they've been quite critical of the
previous government for not advancing the project fast enough. I acknowledge
that project did not advance fast enough; there is no doubt about that.
They
also campaigned on building a replacement for the Waterford Hospital which would
start in 2017. Now they've backed away from that commitment as well. So, Mr.
Speaker, we all have choices to make. The Member for Harbour Grace Port de
Grave is going to have some choices to make. The theatrics of presenting a
petition is one thing, and I commend her for standing and doing that today. The
theatrics of people applauding that are great, but when the time comes to truly
stand and be counted, when people in this House are going to determine if this
budget passes, the question that has to be asked: Will the Member and will other
Members then stand and applaud? Will they stand with their constituents? Will
they stand with the people of the province or will they not? Time will tell.
We'll do
our best during this budget debate to present our concerns about the budget.
We're hearing the same concerns from people around the province, just like
government Members are. We have a responsibility to make sure those concerns get
heard during this debate, and that's what we'll do in the most respectful way
that we possibly can. But there will come a time where we all need to stand and
be counted.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I said I was going to give the overview of all the things I was
concerned about in this budget, and unfortunately my time is quickly ticking
away.
One of
the things I've heard the most about is the levy tax. I've not heard of
governments anywhere, really, introducing temporary measures that magically
disappear after a year or two, or three or four. Most times when government
introduce taxes and fees and levies, they tend not to go away rather quickly. I
think income tax was a temporary measure after the First World War, and we're
still paying a heck of a lot of it. This, actually, Mr. Speaker, is income tax
by another name.
The
criteria that's been established, thresholds that have been established, how
this is being applied with a cap just doesn't make sense. Especially for our
lowest income families and individuals, and especially for middle-class families
who are struggling right now to get by. When you're going to increase the cost
of insurance dramatically, when you're going to increase the cost of gasoline
dramatically, when you're going to increase personal income tax and increase the
HST after promising you wouldn't do that, it's hard to swallow the levy on top
of all of that. So, this Liberal levy needs to be reconsidered.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't have confidence in this budget and I don't have confidence in
this new government. I, as the Member for Mount Pearl North, move a
sub-amendment to this budget, seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East
Bell Island, that the amendment that was previously presented, the
non-confidence motion, be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a
comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words: and that this
House also condemns the government for its failure to demonstrate sound
leadership and compassion by addressing the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador's
most vulnerable: its children, its youth, its seniors, its families, its
communities, or its many others who are impacted by its approach.
Mr.
Speaker, I so move, and I am pleased to present this sub-amendment today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
Is there
a seconder to your
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I did say
initially it is seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, the House will take a
few moments to review the amendment.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
We have
reviewed the amendment as put forward by the Member for the District of Mount
Pearl North and the amendment is found to be in order.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased that in your wisdom you've chosen to find our sub-amendment in order.
For those that may be watching the debate this afternoon, there is some
tradition that goes with the budget process. It's not uncommon for Opposition
parties to lay down an amendment to the budget and then a sub-amendment. It is
particularly important this year.
Our
sub-amendment that we are now debating, as a result of it being found to be in
order, is challenging this budget. It's highlighting the devastating impact that
this budget will have on seniors and families and every individual living in
this province. Not to mention the fact that it will stifle our economy as well.
I'm
pleased to get another opportunity to rise and speak to it because in my first
time this afternoon, I didn't get an opportunity to go through some of the
budget highlights from my perspective which now I'll have the opportunity to do,
so I'm grateful for that.
Again,
as I was saying before time ran out previously, we really do need to keep this
fact based. I think then it will be more informative for the people of the
province. It will be more productive. Given the amount of upset people out
there, it's very easy for us to scream and shout and get people further riled up
and upset. I don't think that's necessary in this instance. I don't think it's
productive in any instance.
I'd
rather talk about some of the facts. Sometimes it's hard to know what's fact and
what's not in this hon. House. I do want to pick up on something that was
mentioned in Question Period today by the Minister of Health and Community
Services in response to one of my questions and then I will move along and talk
specifically about some of the initiatives that are mentioned or killed through
this budget.
He
talked about work being cancelled or put off at the Health Sciences Centre. Now,
Mr. Speaker, all I can tell you is that there are millions and millions of
dollars' worth of work needed at the Health Sciences Centre. I know there are a
lot of people particularly in this region of the province who think of the
Health Sciences Centre as the new hospital. Mr. Speaker, the Health Sciences
Centre opened before I was born. It has been serving this province for something
like 40, 41 years. I am not suggesting it hasn't been well maintained but given
the changes and the advances that have happened in health care in the last four
decades, any facility that is 40 years old would be showing its age.
Now,
it's not the most urgent health infrastructure need in this region, given the
state of the Waterford Hospital that we're all familiar with; but there's no
doubt that given how important the Health Science Centre is to everybody in the
province, no matter what region you live in, there's work that needs to be done
there. I actually attended a news conference I don't know if it was in the
fall or over the summer to highlight some of the work we were approving in
capital improvements at the Health Sciences Centre in repairs and renovations.
I
suspect if we were able to have a more sensible and productive conversation
about it that the minister would agree that the Health Sciences site is in need
of redevelopment. In there may lie part of the solution for the Waterford
Hospital as well, so there are some, at least, elements of it. I do want to
clarify that there were new dollars committed to work at the Health Sciences
Centre last year.
I had
the unfortunate experience very briefly early last year of being a patient at
the Health Sciences Centre. I went for something that I thought was very routine
and I ended up more or less being held captive. I spent two or three days in the
hospital for something really minor. I have to say I received incredibly
excellent care from the staff working in our health care system. I have to
applaud particularly the nursing staff for the amazing work that they do each
and every day.
Anyway,
the point I want to make is that it felt a little bit like
Undercover Boss at the time. I got to see first-hand and I never
had an opportunity as Health minister to really share this experience so I'll
share it very quickly now. I had the opportunity first-hand to see what the
facility was like, how it was operating and what some of the challenges were. It
was a really glimpse obviously, so you can't make decisions or form solid
opinions based on a really brief glimpse.
What was
clear is that there's major infrastructure investment needed. That's true at the
Health Sciences Centre; it's true at St. Clare's. The Waterford Hospital simply
needs to be replaced. Again, as I think the Health Minister would acknowledge,
it's not simply about replacing the bricks and mortar as it exists today; it's
about putting a facility in place and programs in place that will meet the needs
of the community and of the province well into the future.
I look
forward to some of those conversations. I realize that it's tough to have those
kinds of conversations in these fiscal times, but you have to start somewhere
and you have to have a long-term plan. Some of those financial decisions can be
figured out over multiple years and need to be figured out over multiple years.
We were absolutely committed to making investments at the Health Sciences Centre
and we did.
Mr.
Speaker, we've had lots to say about government's Government Renewal Initiative
which gets mentioned daily in this hon. House. I support public consultation and
I support meaningful engagement with the public. So I can't frown on a process
that gives citizens the opportunity, a chance to have a more meaningful say in
the province's finances. That as a concept is a really good thing; however,
what's done with that information and how it's used and whether citizens are
truly engaged is part of the question.
The
initiative took place, lots of feedback was gathered. It's apparently going to
go on for 15 months. There's going to be more decisions on budget number two
this fall. Then I guess further decisions next spring when the 15-month period
comes to an end. I recognize you can't do everything in one budget, obviously.
One of
the questions I have for Members opposite, and I hope will be answered through
the course of this budget debate. Beyond the input that's been gathered through
the formal process so far, will the input that's now rolling in be considered as
part of that government renewal initiative as well? Because hundreds of citizens
participated and that's great, but now on a daily basis we're all hearing from
hundreds of citizens.
I
brought down with me a folder of emails. I haven't printed them all, just the
emails that I've chosen to print to me personally from the past week from people
who are not just expressing concern, and there's a lot of that and it's valid,
and I appreciate it and I empathize but beyond that, people are also making
suggestions on alternatives. Now some of the alternatives are easy to throw out
there and perhaps not even practical and perhaps not even fair. One of the
popular ones is cut everybody's salary in here. Because the suggestion is that
maybe we're not all working hard enough to deal with this situation.
Well I
know that Members of this House, no matter where you sit, are working quite
hard. I know the Cabinet ministers who have presented this budget must have been
working around the clock. I don't agree with the decisions they've made. I
believe there are better choices to be made, but I have no doubt about the level
of work that's being done in challenging times like this. If you're a Cabinet
minister, the work is constant.
Beyond
those kinds of situations that tend to be randomly thrown around every time
there's a financial challenge to deal with, there have been lots of constructive
meaningful suggestions made about other alternatives. Some of them are
alternatives that we had considered. Some of them are alternatives that we had
actually proposed in our blueprint last fall, or in our previous budget or in
our five-year sustainability plan.
Beyond
that, there are new and innovative suggestions being made by residents around
the province about what else could be done to tackle the province's financial
situation. Because taking the drastic measures that this Liberal government is
taking, which will affect everybody in the province and force people to actually
have to maybe not even contemplate, but actually have to move away.
There is
a better way forward, Mr. Speaker. While I have no doubt that the choices we
face are tough, we face them. I know that based on where the financial situation
is now, the choices are even that much tougher. I respectfully acknowledge all
of that, but there is a better way forward. I hope during this debate there's an
opportunity to highlight some of that as well.
I don't
want to spend my time in the budget debate simply quoting constituents that have
written, although that is important, but I'm just going to give you a sampling,
just for a minute or two, of the kinds of things that are being said. There is a
consistent theme along the way.
One of
the things, though, that is bothersome and some of it is directed at Members
on this side of the House, but most of it is directed at Members opposite. I
find the personal attacks really hard to take because I've been there, Mr.
Speaker. For people to personally attack, whether it's the Finance Minister or
the Premier or other Members of Cabinet or other local MHAs, in a personal way,
I think that's rather unfortunate.
I
understand people are angry. I think we have a job to do to make ourselves
available to hear that feedback and empathize and truly hear what constituents
are having to say. I would ask all constituents and all people in the province
to be human about it and to be respectful about it because we're all human
beings. I'm sure as Members have said, and as I said earlier, there's nobody on
the government side that can be excited about what they're proposing to do to
the people of the province. So let's be respectful in the discourse.
There's
language in some of these emails that I can't read in this hon. House, first of
all because it's unparliamentary; and secondly, because it's just unfair and
it's disrespectful. I am angry. I am outraged by this budget. I think that
terrible choices have been made by this government. I feel that people of the
province have a right to feel that they've been misled because so many promises
have been broken. Despite that, there's no need for personal attacks, whether
they be aimed at the Premier, the Finance Minister or MHAs.
That has
to be particularly troubling for new MHAs who are coming into the job for the
first time and have not necessarily been through rough waters like this, and
hopefully won't ever be again. It's got to be particularly troubling for those
MHAs. I know there are probably people who are listening who are saying, well,
that's what you get elected to do, so suck it up, and don't be whining about
people being aggressive or nasty. You can be upset, you can be angry, you can
express concern and you can be outraged, but let's not attack people and their
families and make this personal, even though every decision that's being
proposed in this budget is personal. It will affect my family personally, it
will affect my children, and it will affect my parents. That's true for the
Members opposite as well and it's true for everybody else in this province. So
let's just try and be a bit respectful as we go through the next number of weeks
of debate about this budget.
So,
Madam Speaker, welcome. Just to give you some sense of the kinds of messages I'm
seeing I'll say on an hourly basis, and I think Members opposite would agree
that's not an exaggeration: The budget recently announced is a travesty and will
not only hurt employment and the economy, but will devastate families who were
thought to be making pretty good money. There are a lot of working families,
good taxpayers, middle-class families who are making decent living and would
legitimately feel that while they don't have a lot of money left over, they're
getting by and they're making a contribution to the economy and to society.
I'll
just go on. Between mortgages, child care, heat, food and transportation,
there's not a lot left. Whether you're an MHA or whether you're a public
servant, or whether you're working in the private sector or in the community
sector, that's true for most of us. There are those on the extreme end who are
making much, much more money than any of us are making, who may have a different
set of challenges to deal, but for the vast majority those struggles to make
ends meet are real.
Your
budget has taken this from them and essentially left them with nothing. So many
people were already living paycheque to paycheque and trying to decide what bill
they could pay this pay period or what food they could buy for their children. I
don't know how these people will survive your budget.
This
Liberal government has sucker-punched the people of the province and there's
language then that goes on that I won't read in this hon. House, Madam Speaker.
So I
understand those sentiments. In fact, when I tended the protest at noon with
Members of our PC caucus and also Members of the New Democratic Party who spoke
well at that protest this afternoon, I knew our presence wasn't extremely well
received, and I understand that. I understand some of the anger people are
feeling right now is directed at the past administration as well, and that
conversation needs to be had. We need to take responsibility for the decisions
we made and for the plan we presented and for the promises we campaigned on. But
it doesn't change the fact we're not governing today and we aren't the ones that
can now make the decisions that will affect families and affect the future.
I talked
to one of my constituents who were on the steps who I hadn't seen in quite some
time. She expressed outrage and she witnessed the reception that our leader and
others received today, and it was mixed, but it was also quite obvious that
there were some people that were upset. Her comment was that's not necessarily
productive. We need to focus on the issues of today.
That's
not to say we can deny what's gone on in the past, and we do need to have the
conversation about the decisions that we've made, what our plan was and what we
were prepared to do. We did have a plan and unfortunately people didn't like it.
I respect the decisions that the people have made.
The
point she ultimately made, beyond expressing some sympathy and some appreciation
for the fact that we did stand and be counted today, she said, the choice I have
to make is about when I can buy groceries for my kids. She said, I work for the
provincial government. I have a reasonable job in the provincial government.
It's not high paying.
If
government was to formalize a sunshine list, which has been the subject of much
public discussion recently, it would show that there are lots of people who work
for the government that are not making huge salaries in this day and age. The
vast majority of public servants work very hard every day to earn that money.
The
point she made, she said, I'm trying to make a go of it on my own. I have two
children and it is a struggle, even now, to meet the basic needs, to buy the
groceries that we need from week to week. We have tough choices to make in that
regard. She said I have no idea when July 1 comes I don't know what I'm going
to do.
When
this Liberal levy comes into play and I'm hit harder and I'm taking home less
money every two weeks, on top of all of the other charges that we're going to
face people are going to pay more sales tax, people are going to pay more
personal income tax, people are going to pay more for gas, they're going to pay
more for insurance; everything is going to be taxed or increased with something
like 300 new fees. That's going to be devastating for not just our lowest income
earners and we've invested heavily over the last decade in social programs to
support our lowest income earners but it's going to have a devastating impact
on middle-class families as well.
So to
hear first-hand from that constituent of mine today who was on the steps of
Confederation Building which took a lot of courage when you're a public
servant to express anger, to express outrage, and to pose some tough questions
to me as well about our record, our contribution and the questions that I should
answer as her MHA, those aren't easy conversations to have but they need to be
had. Again, all I ask is that people try and do that in a respectful and
constructive way.
One of
the things we need to demonstrate to the people of the province, and to Members
opposite when their time comes to stand and be counted, is that there is a
better way. We need to be specific about what that might look, despite the very
difficult choices that government must make at this point in time.
Madam
Speaker, I don't have much time left. I'm very concerned about rural
communities. I know I'll often get heckled by Members in this House when I talk
about rural development because I live in Mount Pearl, but do you know what?
There are a lot of people who live in Mount Pearl who come from all kinds of
small communities in every single corner of this province and beyond. They have
families, they have loved ones, they have friends living in those communities.
Most of us, even if we now find ourselves living in an urban setting, have had
some experience and some background and some connection to rural life in this
province.
When I
see offices being closed and services being removed, whether we're talking about
health care in the Central Region or whether we're talking about the closure of
Advanced Education and Skills offices that provide programs and services to
those in need across the province, that does affect the sustainability of rural
communities. Within the Office of Public Engagement and our Rural Secretariat,
our provincial councils and our regional councils are now being eliminated,
which eliminates a rural voice within the government sector that needs to be
heard as well.
I hope
as this debate rages on, Madam Speaker, that I'll have more opportunity to delve
into some of those issues and some of the other issues that affect my
constituents and constituents throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I look
forward to a productive debate. I look forward to a respectful debate.
I know
the choices we face as a people, as a province, aren't easy but I do believe,
Madam Speaker, there is a better way and there are better choices to be made.
The choices that this government is making after making all kinds of promises to
the people, those choices are the wrong choices, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
I remind
the Member his time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I do
want to take a moment and thank my colleagues in the House today. As they would
have been aware, I wasn't here for Question Period. I was attending a funeral,
and I appreciate the support of the Members opposite and the Members on this
side of the House for allowing me to do that with my family today.
Madam
Speaker, over the last week I've had the opportunity to listen to the debate
that has been happening not only in this Chamber but also in the community about
this budget. Madam Speaker, I think one of the things I'd like to do with the 20
minutes that I have today, and I look forward to speaking more to this budget
over the next coming weeks, Madam Speaker, is to address some of the things
Members opposite have been saying, and also work to make sure the right facts
and the correct facts and the real facts are getting out to the people of the
province.
Quite
frankly I don't think it's any surprise, certainly to those of us on this side,
or to people in the province that there are Members opposite, particularly in
the Official Opposition, who continue their habit of telling half-stories and
half-truths. That's exactly what they've been doing for a week, and it's time
for this side of the House and for those of us in the public to put a stop to
it.
Madam
Speaker, Members opposite have said a number of things as part of this debate
this week, and they've talked about this budget in terms of the decisions we had
to make. I think it is really important for those people at home to understand
that many of the difficult choices that came to us as part of the decisions to
make, to cut, and make decisions to save money, save taxpayers' money so it can
be invested in critical public services were placed in front of the former
government. They would have had the same information that we would have had.
Now they
will say they would make decisions differently, and I can certainly understand
why after spending over 130-plus days digging through what are the real facts of
what's going on. It was obvious when I listened to the Member opposite, the
Member for Ferryland, talking about how we're spending $400 million more than
they did last year. He tells that story in the context of how we've let spending
grow, how we've let it expand.
Well,
Madam Speaker, for clarity, the budget would have been, based on their numbers,
$620 million more, and the reason it is $400 million more is first and foremost
there was $300 million, which includes a one-time $222 million increase in
pension expenses due to the pension reform. That's one reason. The second reason
is $320 million increased in debt expenses due to the increasing deficit. So the
$620 million that would have been the budget this year, had we not done
anything, comes from those two items, Madam Speaker. What we were able to do was
to take a number of expenses out.
Now the
dialogue about the budget over the last number of days has focused around the
taxes. Madam Speaker, it may come as a surprise to those listening at home, but
it won't come to a surprise to the Members on this side of the House when we say
things like we are competitive in Atlantic Canada and based on taxes for a
variety of rates, which I'm happy to table in this House and showcase the
competiveness of the current personal income tax, I'm prepared to table that
document and let the Members opposite be reminded of the full story they're
going to have to be accountable to telling the people of the province.
Madam
Speaker, there is one story they're not telling, and that is the journey this
province has been on when it comes to personal income tax. In 2001, the highest
tax earners in this province 2001 were being taxed at a rate of over 18 per
cent.
In 2007,
the former administration lowered taxes and everybody celebrated about the lower
taxes. I'll remind people in this House, that was when peak oil production was
forecast. The top earners were moved down from 18 per cent to 16.5 per cent.
In 2008,
they again reduced taxes, and what did they do? They reduced it to 15.5 per cent
for the top earners. Then in 2010, they again dropped taxes. Now having dealt
with peak oil production had passed, peak oil price had passed, there was a
significant shift in revenue, and they dropped the taxes on the highest paid
earners down to 13.3 per cent.
Now,
Madam Speaker, when I listen to the Members opposite speak about the tax
increases we made and the difficult choices we made, and I say they like to pick
and choose the stories they tell, that's a story that needs to be told.
Madam
Speaker, I think it would be important for the Members of this House to also
understand that between 2008 in the 2008 tax reduction and in the 2010 tax
reduction when they were dropping the taxes for high-income people, Members
opposite, when they were in government did not adjust the tax rate for the first
bracket, for the lowest income earners in our province.
They sit
here and they go out in public and they talk about these increases and they only
want to tell half-truths. It's the same pattern of behaviour they had in the
dying days of their government when they only wanted to tell half-truths to the
people of this province, Madam Speaker. I can tell you that Members on this side
of the House are not going to tolerate half-truths out there in the population.
Our tax
increases, even last year when they moved the minister last year spoke about
introducing two tax brackets and they were going to go after the high-income
earners. They only moved them to 15.3 per cent. They didn't even go back to 2007
levels. They kept the rates low on those high-income earners.
What
we've done, Madam Speaker, is we have moved the taxes in 2007 on the highest
bracket to 18.3 per cent. So let nobody misunderstand that this government and
the decisions we made are based on fairness and are based on being responsible,
based on the facts that we're faced with.
Now the
Members in the Third Party like to talk about all of the things in the budget
that we're cutting. Madam Speaker, this temporary deficit levy that we're going
to have and that we've introduced and we've publicly put ourselves on the
record to say that amount of money will stop and be phased out as part of
2018-19's budget. Members opposite in the Third Party like to talk about it in
the context of just that amount and not in the entire amount of taxes. I would
also be prepared to table a document that speaks very clearly. With the personal
income taxes that we have changed and the deficit levy, every single tax bracket
is paying less than they were under the Tories.
Madam
Speaker, I understand and I have said repeatedly since January that this issue
of the deficit that we're facing is a very difficult one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. C. BENNETT:
When we spend 12 to 13 and
increasing cents on debt expenses, we have to take action. The Official
Opposition in government wouldn't make the choices. They wouldn't communicate
with the people of the province. They wouldn't give them the facts. The Third
Party believes that there is a pool of money somewhere that's going to show up
they have the same thinking that somehow money is going to show up somewhere to
pay for things.
Madam
Speaker, when we launched our budget last week, I was very clear with the people
of the province that we had a clear plan to get back to surplus because, quite
frankly, that's what the people of the province expect us to do. They also
expect us to make sure that we are investing money to make sure that those
people who are most vulnerable in our province are taken care of.
We've
done three things, Madam Speaker, as part of this budget that the Members
opposite don't want to talk about. They don't want to talk about it. The three
things would include the introduction of the Newfoundland and Labrador Income
Supplement, an increased amount of money that allows us to mitigate many of the
tax increases that people in low incomes are going to be faced. It was a
priority for this government and it is going to continue to be a priority for us
to continue to invest where we know people in vulnerable situations are having
struggles.
Madam
Speaker, the other thing we did was to make sure that those individuals on
income support who may be affected by the discontinuation of the Home Heating
Rebate under the previous government what we did is we implemented a new pot
of money to make sure that those individuals are not disadvantaged. The Members
opposite don't want to talk about that. They don't want to get those facts out
to the people of the province.
The
third item we did was to make sure that those people in our community, those
seniors
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. C. BENNETT:
The Member opposite wants to
continue to heckle me while I'm talking. She can continue to do that, Madam
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Madam Speaker, we've also
invested in enhancing the Seniors' Benefit so seniors will be able to get more
money to offset the implications of the consumption tax increase, and also to
offset implications of the Home Heating Rebate reduction.
The
Members opposite, I understand, they want to play politics with this. If I was
sitting on that side of the House, I'd be pretty ashamed to go out to a protest
as well. I'd be pretty ashamed to show my face as well when the people of the
province watched them justify investments and justify things without having
financial accountability to today.
They
talked about, for years, that the motherlode was coming; the big money was
coming. Madam Speaker, our government is not prepared to not take action, and we
will continue to make decisions that are in the best interests of the province.
Now, you
know what, there is absolutely no way any government, any government, any Tory
government, any NDP government, or the current government could look to increase
revenue and not impact people. It's impossible, but what we can do is to make
sure when we make those difficult decisions on revenue that we invest in
protecting the most vulnerable in our community and make sure they are taken
care of.
The
other thing we can do is to be open and transparent about when we intend to
bring this province not only back to surplus, but when we intend to move off
temporary taxes. But for Members opposite, particularly in the Official
Opposition, to talk about the deficit levy as something that is giving
high-rollers a free ride, I would remind them of the free ride they gave
high-rollers in 2007, 2008, 2010 and in 2015, Madam Speaker.
You know
what I'm happy to listen to the debate, but when Members opposite get up and
stand up and talk about things like we had a five-year plan; it was a balanced
plan. Well, Madam Speaker, I think it would be really important for the Members
of this House to understand that in their plan last year they budgeted all of
the things they were going to spend money on, and then they decided let's throw
$150 million in there that we hope to save, and wish for good luck.
That is
unacceptable when it comes to openness and transparency. It's unacceptable when
it comes to the responsibility they had to be transparent about the budget. That
is not a seven-year plan; that's sticking in a number and making something work
in an election year.
The
Members opposite spoke about, as I said, the two new personal income tax rates,
two new income tax brackets they brought in. As I've said before, they brought
them in, and the highest earner was 15.3 per cent, the second-highest earners
were 14.3 per cent. I remind the people of this House and the Members home who
are listening that we've moved that rate up in 2017 to 18.3 per cent.
Madam
Speaker, the Members opposite talk about things like this to scare people. They
say the HST went up and there's no rebate, but they don't want to talk about the
Newfoundland Income Supplement, which is actually even more money than what
would have been the HST rebate that hasn't been adjusted or changed since 1997
that this government did, this government took leadership on
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
this government changed to
make sure that those people on low income had much more money in their pockets
than the previous government.
Madam
Speaker, we talk about infrastructure and investment. The Members opposite in
their debate so far talked a lot about infrastructure investment. I want the
people of the province today to understand that our government, through
investments, is leveraging and spending $570 million and that doesn't include
any large-scale projects. That's $570 million invested in infrastructure that's
going to create 1,000 jobs a year for the next four years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Madam Speaker, when that
comes to looking and investing in the economy, I think that's something that our
government, considering that we're faced with a $1.8 billion deficit, can be
really proud.
The
Members opposite want to talk about the budget in the context of pieces of it
that they want to talk about for their own purposes. I understand that. I
understand having been in the House now for a little over a year and a half.
I've seen how they operate. I understand that their choice is to talk about
things in terms that get the people fanned up.
Madam
Speaker, do you know what? When we find out things as part of our budget
process, like one-time decisions that the former administration made that saw
money, fire trucks and others go into Tory districts 19 out of 20 times, I think
the people of the province need to understand that.
I'm
quite prepared, and Members on this side of the House are quite prepared, to
work with our constituents and all of the people in the province to make the
decisions over the next four years, through our mandate, to get our province
back on fiscal ground that is solid so that we can ensure that we have efficient
services for the people of the province. What we won't do is we won't sit idly
by and watch the Members of the Opposition both Opposition parties
cherry-pick the things they want to go out and create in the community even more
anxiety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Madam Speaker, I look forward
to participating in this debate; I look forward to continuing to participate in
this debate and explain to the people of the province the amount of priority we
have put into low-income individuals and the money we're investment back through
the Newfoundland income tax credit and the temporary nature of the deficit.
I look
forward to the Members opposite standing up in this House and explaining to us
the things they would like to see cut in their districts and in other districts
that would save them money from the Deficit Reduction Levy. I would look forward
to that conversation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I stand
today to speak to the budget. This is my first time speaking to the budget in
this session: Restoring Fiscal Confidence
and Accountability.
Madam
Speaker, I would imagine that many people who voted for the Liberals in our last
provincial election in November did so based on the very concrete promises the
Premier and his team made to the people of the province: no public sector
layoffs, no HST increase, a strong plan for diversification, a stronger future.
The Premier and his team loudly, boldly and unequivocally made those promises to
the people Newfoundland and Labrador a mere four-and-a-half months ago.
The
people of the province believed them. They trusted them. Why wouldn't they? The
Liberals so clearly and earnestly guaranteed them no job cuts, no HST increase,
a great plan for diversification which we so desperately need because of the
previous administration's addiction to oil revenues. The hard-working, honest
and innovative people of Newfoundland and Labrador were ready to roll up their
sleeves to work together to pull us out of this financial mess facing our
province. Everyone was ready. They were willing to take hits, to take sacrifices
and to roll up our sleeves saying, okay, we know how tough this fiscal situation
is, we are willing to be part of the solution. That's what the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador relied on. That's what they believed this government
was bringing to them.
Instead,
what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador got was a budget without vision, a
budget with no hope, a budget full of tax hikes, extra fees, layoffs, levies and
reductions in services and no signs. There is not a single sign in this budget
that's called Restoring Fiscal Confidence
and Accountability because that's all it's about.
There is
no sign of hope. There is no sign of a stronger future. That's what the people
of this province were relying on from this government. They were relying on the
fact that this government was promising to work with them so we could all haul
ourselves out of this fiscal mess. A budget that hits hard-working people,
families, students, seniors, the arts community, rural communities, First
Nations people.
This
budget, Madam Speaker, hits hardest those who did not share equally in the
prosperity, but who will now bear the greatest burden in this budget of
austerity. It hits hardest those who did not share equally in the prosperity,
but who will be hit the hardest and bear the greatest burden in this austerity.
We don't even know yet what the full rollouts, the full effects of this budget
will be.
For
instance, we know right now in the Adult Dental Program there hasn't been any
dentures approved for people who were eligible for that program since last
November. We also know that 1,600 not 16, not 160, but 1,600 people requiring
dentures in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador alone are on a wait-list.
Yet, this program has been cut to the bone; 1,600 people waiting since last year
for dentures. Is that prosperity? Is that a stronger future? I don't think so.
Do you know what? The people of Newfoundland and Labrador don't think so either.
The
Minister of Finance just said people are not going to be hit as hard as they
think they are. Do you know what? They're adding it up. They're adding up how
they're going to be hit by the increase in taxes, the increase in fees, this
levy this Muskrat folly levy, this Muskrat folly tax that's being placed on
them.
This is
not even a budget. It's not a plan for economic recovery for the province. There
is nothing bold or innovative in this budget, none whatsoever. Instead,
government is acting like accountants rather than as a government. As
government, their task was to design a plan to create jobs, increase opportunity
by stimulating the economy and leading and helping to develop sustainable
diversification. There's no plan for any new revenues. That was the role of
government.
This
budget is a missed opportunity. We know that budgets are all about choices, they
don't just happen on their own. This is about choices. Every single paragraph in
this Budget Speech represents a choice this government made.
They
talk about the Government Renewal Initiative. I'm calling it the Government
Renewal Initiative movement. It's grim. What they have done is grim nothing
short of grim.
Instead
of creating a budget, instead of taking leadership that would bring us to
economic recovery, instead they took a red pen and went line by line cutting. As
the Minister of Finance so proudly, so often said in the House, they took a pen
and went line by line cutting. So proudly announcing time and time again that
they went line by line.
That's
what accountants do. That's not what governments with a vision for prosperity,
with a vision for economic recovery, with a vision of getting the people the
people who were so ready knowing, because our people are not stupid. They knew
the fiscal situation we were in, but everybody was willing to do their part, to
roll up their sleeves and get to work. Just like accountants, not like a
government leading us out of this mess, how very, very short sighted. This was
their opportunity to turn things around for our Newfoundland and Labrador. For
our Newfoundland and Labrador this was the opportunity and they failed
miserably.
The
minister and the Premier both said how sad and sorry they were to present this
budget when instead it's because they went line by line. They were so sad and
sorry to present this budget when instead they should have proudly and
confidently presented a plan for economic recovery for the province, a plan that
would get our hard-working, resilient people pulling together. That's what they
should have accomplished, not something they were sad and sorry to present to
the people of the province, but something they were so proud because they
should have presented something, that they have a plan that would get us all
working, a plan that would point to a stronger future. It's a sad, sorry state
of affairs indeed because they fail so miserably.
We all
knew how tough our fiscal situation was in Newfoundland and Labrador. How the
past government squandered our prosperity by not investing in long-term
programs, by shackling us with the enormous cost of a huge, huge megaproject,
Muskrat Falls Muskrat folly which probably should never have been
greenlighted because there were too many outstanding questions. Now this
government has squandered the opportunity to start to turn things around. Again,
this budget is without vision. This is a budget without hope.
They had
the opportunity to be bold. This situation we face required boldness, it
required innovation. They had that opportunity to be bold and innovative, and
instead they nickeled and dimed departments and are squeezing every possible
penny they can out of the pockets of the people with fees and inequitable taxes
rather than working toward real diversification, rather than using our
incredible hard-working innovative people and creating jobs. No, instead they
have chosen to choke out every bit of life of our own people. This is not a
budget, but rather it's a scheme to pickpocket the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. And to what end?
A job
loss is not a move forward. Real strategies for diversification and real job
creation, now that's a plan for moving forward. I thought perhaps, in spite of
all the posturing of doom and gloom, they'd come up with something, anything
that would propel us forward, because we were told again and again and again
about the doom and gloom. We were all warned, but I thought some of that was
theatrics. That maybe, though, they were going to pull it out. That they were
going to pull out a plan that really compelled us forward.
In
November, so many people had put their trust in this government to help steer us
through these tough times. Instead, they have stalled in their tracks,
paralysed, unable to lead us one step forward. This was an opportunity. This was
an opportunity to propel the province forward. This was an opportunity for
economic recovery. This was an opportunity for bold and innovative plans for
diversification. This was an opportunity to make people's lives better and they
failed. They failed miserably. They failed the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Greece,
Ireland, UK: all who face such incredible economic challenges. Leading
economists the world over all knows that you cannot cut your way to prosperity.
We know that. Those are hard-learned lessons. These countries have proven, and
leading economists the world over have proven, that austerity budgets do not
work, but rather they stifle and they stagnate economies.
Look at
Alberta. I know the situation is not the same. I know they do not have a huge
debt. I know they have a much larger population to work with. I know that. The
people in this House know that. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know
that. With over a $10 billion deficit and a loss of over 60,000 jobs in the oil
and gas sector, rather than punishing their people, they are investing in their
people. They are doing leadership. They are investing in diversification and
creating jobs. They are investing in infrastructure, putting their people to
work with a clear plan to move towards recovery. They know that you cannot cut
your way to prosperity.
The only
employment plan by this Liberal government is a plan of job losses. That is
their employment plan: a plan of job losses. We look at what they're targeting.
After promising no layoffs, when we look at what they're targeting in the public
sector this is a plan. Their job plan is a plan for job losses. They have no
long-term plan for recovery. They haven't created a single job, except we all
know that there are more job cuts on the horizon. They have no plan for
diversification. There's not a single plan for diversification in the budget. In
fact, they are shrinking our economy.
They
admitted themselves in their own Budget Speech that the economy will be in
decline by over 15 per cent over the next five years due to their provincial
deficit reduction measures. It's here on page 5 of the Budget Speech. It is
quite surprising that this government admits that because of their provincial
deficit reduction measures, in fact, the economy is going to stall; it is going
to shrink, rather than grow the economy, rather than pull us out of this mess.
Their
recovery plan? Well, I believe the recovery plan of this government is the
Premier and the minister are crossing their fingers hoping the price of oil will
go up, because there is no other plan unless they have something they're not
telling us about, and one would hope to God they do have something, but so far
they haven't told us about it. All we know is they're crossing their fingers
hoping the price of oil. The Deficit Reduction Levy, the Muskrat Falls tax, the
Muskrat folly tax, taking $300 from people earning $20,000 a year; what is that?
What is that all about?
MS. C. BENNETT:
That is not true.
MS. ROGERS:
Madam Speaker, working for
less than minimum wage, people living below the poverty line well, the
minister is telling me that's not true, and I sure hope I'd love to see that
in black and white.
For
instance, though, let's take a look there we go, we see it in black and white
what happens with a family, two people in the household, each working, each
earning $50,000 a year. So let's look at a household like that. We have two
earners in the household, each making $50,000 a year. Each of those earners will
pay $600 for the levy.
That
means that household, with two earners making only $50,000 a year each, probably
paying a student loan, probably paying a mortgage, probably paying a car
payment, probably paying more on their insurance now as well, maybe trying to
get child care. So each of those earners, $50,000 each, one household, two
earners, $600 each that household will pay $1,200. That's what's going to come
out of that household.
However,
their next door neighbour who's making $900,000 and only one earner in that
household, that household in fact will only pay $900. So your neighbour who's
making $800,000-$900,000 will pay $900 for the levy, whereas in your household,
where you're each making $50,000, you will pay $1,200 from your household. How
does that make sense in anyone's calculations?
Now, I
believe when government said they went all over the province and that a thousand
people came to their town halls to give them ideas about how to make this
better. I was concerned about the question the government never asked people:
What can we do, and what is it that we need to go forward? They asked, how can
we cut?
Well, I
believe they perhaps listened to a thousand people and maybe the thousands of
recommendations on the website. I cannot imagine anybody made these
recommendations. Who is this government listening to? Who in their wisdom came
up with this? Who is this government listening to? They're not listening to the
people who are out protesting in the streets right now, the people who are
adding up, because the people know so far some of the effects this budget will
have on them. A lot of people don't know yet what the rollout of the details of
this budget will be and how it will affect their lives.
Selling
off publicly-owned land and buildings is like selling off the house to pay the
mortgage. I fear, Madam Speaker, what this government is going to do with some
of the assets, with some of the valuable assets we own as a people of the
province, whether it be land, whether it be buildings, because we won't be
getting them back.
Closing
courts and other public services in rural communities. The people out in Gambo
losing their clinic. People who are losing jobs, who are losing services. No
comprehensive home care to keep people in their homes and out of expensive
institutions. Cutting back on the Adult Dental Program, where there hasn't been
an approval for dentures for people who need them since last November. Cutting
grants to students, cutting the parental benefits, school closures, nothing to
increase our population growth strategy.
There's
not a darn thing in this budget that speaks to growth strategy. Nothing to help
our young people to stay here. This government's recovery plan? Well, the
Premier and minister have no recovery plan. Again, it's crossing their fingers,
hoping that the price of oil will go up.
What a
panicked, misguided mess this is. The people of this province feel blindsided.
They are angry and they know they have been betrayed by false promises, by
broken promises. They are writing letters, phoning, going on Open Line shows,
signing petitions, speaking to their neighbours, marching in the streets. The
people of Newfoundland are livid and they're not taking this lying down.
Madam
Speaker, we need a plan that relies on and supports the hard-working, resilient,
and smart people of our Newfoundland. Until this happens, I will not be voting
to support this budget. A vote in favour of this budget is a vote against the
people of Newfoundland. I have no confidence in this government to pull us out
of this mess, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have no confidence
whatsoever in this government to pull us out of this mess. Crossing your fingers
and hoping that the price of oil goes up is not a plan for recovery.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the Member her time has expired.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It gives
me great pleasure to stand today in my place to speak on Budget 2016. First of
all, before I get into my comments, I want to express my appreciation to the
Cabinet, to the Premier and to the Minister of Finance for all the hours they've
put into preparing this document because I know, I've seen it. It's been long
nights, long days. I know their job wasn't easy.
It's
never easy when the province is in this position. I just start off by I guess
preface my remarks as well with the comments from the Member for Mount Pearl
North who said, blaming it on the past is not productive and we need to focus on
today. That's true. Maybe it's not productive, but it's the facts.
The last
budget that we saw from the Opposition showed a $1.1 billion, $1.2 billion
deficit, but we all know what the number was when we introduced the budget. It
was $2.7 billion. How do you address that without affecting the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
We've
created a plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. LETTO:
I'm sure they'll get a chance
to stand in their place.
Drastic
conditions, Madam Speaker, like the $2.7 billion deficit requires drastic
measures. We have to focus on today and make the tough decisions so that our
children and our grandchildren will not be in debt for the rest of their lives
if the deficit goes unchecked.
We take
no pleasure in doing the measures that we've had to do. I take no pleasure. I'm
sure the Cabinet didn't take any pleasure. We cannot let this province go into a
position where it cannot find itself back out and that's where we are.
I've
heard from constituents. I've gotten the emails. I've been attacked on social
media. People are angry, and I fully understand that. I know that the court in
Wabush is going to be cut back to a circuit court. I know that, but I'm willing
to work and the Minister of Justice is willing to work with the community to
mitigate the impact that would have on our justice system. We're prepared to
work with the people.
It's
been said by the Minister of Finance and by the Premier, given all the tax
increases and fee increases that we see in this budget we are now at a taxation
level of 2006, 2007. We all know what happened in '08, '09,'10,'11 with the peak
oil production, peak oil prices, money galore. Unfortunately, it was all spent.
For all
the bad news that people tend to highlight the Opposition or Third Party
there is a lot of good news in this budget.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Oh yeah?
MR. LETTO:
Yes, there is. There is good
news in this budget.
I'm
going to start my comments with the good news by going back to Estimates on
Monday night when we had Estimates for Municipal Affairs. The Member for Cape
St. Francis congratulated the minister and congratulated the members of
Municipal Affairs for the good work they had done in the budget to help
municipalities. So there is good news in the budget.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes, there is.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you. So we have that on
record, there is good news in the budget.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You're the one who said there
was no good news.
MR. LETTO:
I didn't say it.
Before I
get into the good news for municipalities
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LETTO:
Madam Speaker, if I'm
allowed, I want to recognize the people of L'Anse au Clair today. I want to
recognize the people of L'Anse au Clair my hometown, your district for the
terrible loss that they experienced just two days ago when they lost their town
hall, their community centre and the lifeblood of their town. I wanted to
recognize them.
Yes,
despite all the bad news in the budget, we will be there to help the Town of
L'Anse au Clair recover when the times comes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Just like Bay de Verde.
MR. LETTO:
Just like Bay de Verde,
that's right.
We
recognize as well, Madam Speaker, that there's only one taxpayer in this
province. Whether it's federal tax or provincial tax or municipal tax, it's the
same taxpayer that's paying it. To download the $2.7 billion deficit onto
municipalities just doesn't make any sense. If we did it to them, they would
have to pass it on to the same taxpayer that we're leaning on.
So for
that, we recognize services delivered at the local government level can have the
greatest impact on the day-to-day lives of our residents. Yes, over the past
number of years we've done some great, great work with MNL to put in place a
Community Sustainability Partnership. We are prepared, as a government, to
continue with that partnership and to enhance that partnership.
In
budget 2016-2017, to look at some good news, there are no reductions in the
Municipal Operating Grants. They will stay at $22 million. There are no changes
to the provincial-municipal cost-sharing ratios for municipal projects; they
still stay at 90-10, 80-20, 70-30 all good things.
All the
initiatives announced as part of the Community Sustainability Partnership will
be maintained, including the sharing of the provincial gas tax revenues, the
partial HST rebate and the regional governance consultations. We will maintain
all that.
I'll
just go into a little bit more detail. The HST rebate: Rebates to municipalities
and local service districts of 25 per cent increasing to 57.14 per cent in
January, 2017, which will be $11.4 million alone for the 2016-2017 fiscal year.
So that's good revenue for municipalities.
We are
also sharing provincial revenue from the gasoline tax with municipalities. As of
April 1 this year, it increased to 0.75 cents per litre, providing $5.3 million
of funding to our municipalities this year. I know that we've implemented and
I want to just mention here that as part of our temporary measures, the 16.5
cents that's being implemented as gasoline tax. This government has recognized
that those communities living close to the Quebec border in this case would be
disadvantaged if we were to impose that. Because of that, municipalities of
Labrador City and Wabush which I represent and the municipalities of on The
Straits area in Cartwright L'Anse au Clair will get a 10 cent rebate on that.
So we recognize those municipalities who would be adversely affected by that.
Combined
with the $22 million, these initiatives will provide over $38 million to
municipalities this year alone, but the Community Sustainability Partnership is
more than just fiscal in nature, of course. It will enhance supports to our
communities, strengthening their ability to deliver quality services to the
people and businesses within them.
In
addition, we will continue to provide funding for the three regional service
boards to engage regional water and waste water operators with a pilot group of
communities to help address their water and waste water infrastructure options.
So we know this is very important going forward. Drinking water and waste water,
given the regulations coming down from the federal government.
We will
also continue to work with the Department of Environment and Conservation in the
reduction of boil water advisories through the implementation of consultant
recommendations. Again, positive for the municipalities.
Now
we've heard a lot about infrastructure and what's needed in our province,
whether it's in communities, whether it's on roads or wherever it is, and we
recognize the demand out there for infrastructure is quite high. The need is
quite high and it's going to get higher, especially in the waste water area
where regulations are coming down. Many municipalities now are going through
their flow meters and their tests to determine what category they fit into.
Over the
next four years this government will invest about $344 million for new and
existing municipal infrastructure projects, which will enable us to leverage
over $146 million in federal funding. So with the municipal contributions, their
10 per cent, 20 per cent or 30 per cent, whatever category they fall into, the
result is a total of $625 million in the next four years in municipal
infrastructure. That translates into jobs, a thousand jobs.
Meanwhile, we are also, as you know, this past year one of the main issues in
municipalities and certainly residents living in municipalities was the high
assessments and how residents were impacted by the mill rates and by the high
assessments. Immediately, with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we're moving
forward with a review of the Municipal Assessment Act to look at the timing of
assessments, the criteria around assessments and the implementation of the mill
rate. So we are looking at that, and we are going to move forward immediately.
We're
also moving forward with the regionalization, the regional governance models,
because municipalities today are asking for it. An advisory committee has been
formed on that as well, and we are moving forward.
I just
want to bring because municipalities is I guess where a lot of us in this room
have cut our front teeth in politics, whether we were mayors, councillors or
even employees within municipalities. I stand here today because the
Professional Municipal Administrators of which my colleague, the Member for
Fogo Cape Freels was honoured last night for his involvement in that
organization are in town this week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
They are in town this week
for their annual convention. I will speak to them tomorrow night on behalf of
the minister. We recognize the great work that they do.
Of
course, we cannot forget our mayors and councillors who do a great job for us
right across this province, and through their organization, Municipalities
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Together, in partnership with these organizations and others, municipalities
will continue to be sustainable. That's our goal because sustainable communities
will lead to a sustainable province.
Before I
sit down, I have a few minutes left. As you know, this province is a
resource-driven province. We talk about oil and we talk about where the jobs are
going to come from in the next few years.
Something I've worked a long time in, and very dear to my heart besides
municipalities, is mining. I've heard the Member for St. John's Centre say we're
counting on oil going up. Well, it is. It's $46 a barrel today, Brent oil.
There's another resource that's very, very important in this province and this
province has seen a drop in revenue because of the drop in the industry and
that's the iron ore industry.
This
past December, iron ore was selling at $38 a ton. We saw what happened with
Wabush Mines. We saw the stories about IOC operating at risk. Well, guess what?
I think we've turned a corner because today, whether it's sustainable or not,
iron ore is selling at $70 a ton.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
So the prices are going up, I
say to the Member opposite. Do you know what that does? That makes mining
sustainable. That makes Wabush Mines attractive. Guess what? It brings Alderon
back into play. It brings Tata Steel into play. That's money into our coffers.
So there
is hope in this province, Madam Speaker. There is hope in the resource sector.
There is hope in mining. We just have to maintain that hope.
We
always hear we're counting on hope. I've lived my whole life on hope, and I hope
to live a lot longer. Maybe to some people's chagrin in this place, I don't
know, but I hope to live a lot longer. And we have to live on hope, because
there is hope in this province and there is hope in the resource sector.
Another
mineral that's showing considerable improvement, and that's copper now, you
say, what do we do with copper? Well, Voisey's Bay has copper, and copper is a
bellwether commodity of the mining industry. Copper was selling, not so very
long ago, down around less than $2 a pound. Well, guess what it is this morning?
I checked; it was $2.25 a pound.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Ten per cent.
MR. LETTO:
Ten per cent.
Iron ore
increased, by the way; iron ore price increased 62 per cent since January 1 62
per cent. So there is hope for us, and we have other mines coming on. We have
the gold out in Baie Verte, the Member for Baie Verte, the Rambler mine, the
Anaconda mine those prices are going up; the demand is going up. We have St.
Lawrence fluorspar coming on-stream.
So to
say there is no hope and there is no future in this province, people should be
ashamed to say that. There is hope in this province; there is hope. We just got
to believe in ourselves and we got to believe in the resources we have here.
The
value of the provincial mineral shipments totalled $2.9 billion in 2015 a $2.9
billion industry in 2015. That's only going to get better. We have to look at
increasing our revenues. And as our revenues increase, that provides relief on
our temporary measures we implemented to get ourselves back on an even keel. So
the sooner these prices go up, the sooner these resources are developed, the
better it is.
I'm not
saying we're out of the woods. The markets continue to be challenging, but the
outlook is good. The economists are all over the place. Some are saying we're
going back to $30 iron ore; some say we're going to $100. So they're all over
the place, but I'm confident things will get better in the resource sector.
I'll
close my comments I cannot sit down without having a few words on
infrastructure when it comes to the Minister of Transportation and Works. It was
only a couple of weeks ago and I have to mention this because I was so angry
when a certain councillor from the City of St. John's managed to go on the radio
and talk about twinning the highway from St. John's to Port aux Basques, right
across Canada. I would love to see a twinned highway.
Do you
know where he said to get the money? He said to take it from the Trans-Labrador
Highway because a gravel road is good enough for the people of Labrador. Well, I
can tell you, Madam Speaker, and you agree with me, a gravel road is not good
enough for the people of Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
A gravel road is not good
enough for the people of Labrador and this government believes that a gravel
road is not good enough for the people of Labrador. That's why the Minister of
Transportation and Works has in this budget $63.7 million for widening and
paving of the Trans-Labrador Highway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
That's what this government
is about. We don't need to take lectures from people who live outside of
Labrador who think that a gravel road is good enough for our people just because
they went on it once and all they saw was a bit of dust. Well, I hope he saw the
pictures that were going around two weeks ago. He would have said something
different.
Madam
Speaker, we can sit here and listen to the rhetoric from the other side that
this budget is all bad news. Yes, there are some difficult decisions that were
made in the budget. I don't like them any more than they do or the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador do. I've been told many times that they're not
acceptable. What's not acceptable is to encounter a $2.7 billion deficit this
year and allow that to continue on until it puts us out of sight and out of
point of recovery.
Madam
Speaker, thank you for the time. I look forward to speaking again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I always
do thank the wonderful people in Cape St. Francis for giving me the opportunity
to be here the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis for giving me the
opportunity to be part of this debate. I'm not going to get up here today and
say this is right, that's right and argue with the opposite Member across the
way and stuff like that. I will remind him that I agree with the Trans-Labrador
Highway being done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Our government invested $550
million in it. That's a great investment. It's a great investment for people in
the province. I hate when I see I really do somebody saying we shouldn't get
it, somebody else. Don't put people against each other; I don't like that. I
think that every project I'd like to see twinning too between Whitbourne and
Clarenville.
We have
seen some wicked, horrific accidents that have been on our highway lately, and
maybe that would have helped in any case at all. So I really believe we have to
invest in Labrador, like we do have to invest on the Avalon or whether it's the
Northern Peninsula, anywhere at all. I believe we have to be fair. That's what
I'm about, is being fair. I think we have to be fair to the people of the
province, and I think we have to be fair to our constituents and people that
live here.
Now, I'm
going to change because the previous speaker, he mentioned a couple of things,
and I'm just going to go there, then I'll go into the gist I wanted to talk
about today. He spoke about Estimates the other night, and I was at Estimates
the other night and I did congratulate the department because I know how hard
municipal people work in this province. Being a former mayor in a small town,
it's so important we know government supports us.
Over the
last number of years, and part of it you'll hear rhetoric and you'll hear you
squandered money. Well, I'll tell you one of the biggest investments I think
this government did was in municipalities in this province, and it was a good
investment. He talked about the ratios.
I can
remember being the Mayor of the Town of Flatrock looking for a fire truck when
we had to decide what we were going to do. It was a big decision to go get a
fire truck because it was 50-50 funding at the time. Then we ended up, we
decided to go for it, and it cost us a lot of money. It cost us $135,000 to a
small town with a population of about 1,200 people which is a lot of money for
a town like that. But the new ratios came in and that year there were seven
applications in for fire vehicles.
I asked
a question the other night in Estimates, how many were in last year I'm not
sure, was it 72? I think it was 72. So that'll tell you what the investment of
just changing the ratios did for people in Newfoundland and Labrador, did mainly
for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because towns with populations that are
declining couldn't afford it. Towns with seniors there, people on fixed income,
couldn't afford; the tax base was low.
But the
90-10, the 80-20 and the 70-30 was huge for municipalities. Listen, I'm so glad.
I didn't say there was anything I wanted to good news. I want to see good
news. I want to see good things. It's your Minister of Finance that said there's
nothing good in this budget but I think that's good. I think that the
sustainability plan that was put in place last year is a great thing.
When you
go in this province and you look what our municipal leaders do, we're at one
level; they're at another level. They deal with personal stuff every day, and
they deal with people, whether it is houses, roads and they're the volunteers
in our communities. Most of them don't get paid; they volunteer.
I'm so
glad you continued to do what we started and what we continued to do over the
years and support them, because they're the backbone of all the towns. I really
believe that. That's a good thing; that's a real good news story. When I came to
Estimates the other night, I was really pleased to see the Department of
Municipal Affairs didn't kill the towns.
I know
in my district, I spoke to all my mayors. I go to a regular meeting on a regular
time. As a matter of fact, every couple of months, I'll sit in on council
meetings. I just don't tell them I'm coming and I'll just go in and sit on a
council meeting and have a yarn afterwards, go inside and talk and whatever,
just see what's on the go. There may be a couple of issues in the town they want
to talk to me about, but I make myself available to them because I know how
important they are to the people in their communities.
So
that's what we got to do. Not cutting anything in Municipal Affairs is a great
thing. Those ratios, I'm glad of those ratios. Because they had a fear talking
to all my mayors, they were scared. They said: This budget coming, are they
going to download services on us? I'm sure, I bet you every one of you over
there heard that, that municipalities were concerned we were going to download
services to them. I'm glad we didn't. Because listen, there's the federal
government, there's us, and there's them but guess what? There's only one
taxpayer. No matter what we do, there's only one taxpayer. Whether it's the
federal government, provincial government or municipal governments, we only have
one taxpayer. That taxpayer is the one that's going to pay for it.
So
there's a lot of good things in it gas tax last year, that was a new program
we brought in making sure there was money available. They do a lot of good
things with it. There are a lot of good things.
I am a
little bit concerned, and I said it the other night, about whether we're going
to be ready in 2021 with waste water. I know two of the communities in my
district are doing projects now and trying to get ready for the waste water and
make sure they have but we need to have money available.
I do
believe and listened to the minister the other night and just to explain a
little bit. Say if something cost $10 million and the feds come in and pay 50
per cent of it that means there's $5 million left, and then we go to the 90-10.
So the towns and municipalities are not really burdened too much with it. But
that money has to be there to be able to do this. The federal government are
going to come down by 2021 and make sure these projects are done. It's very
important to the towns, and it should be done too. It really should be done.
I heard
the Premier also say about the hard work the minister did. Listen, I saw what
ministers did. I've been around here for eight years now and I see what
ministers do. I tell you, you do work hard. I applaud every one of you that
steps up and is a minister or a Member in this place. I know you work hard.
You're running big departments and everything else.
That's
it; that's what you sign up here to do. Some people say to me: Gee, Kev, how
come you got involved in that? What are you doing that for? Why would you put
yourself because do you know what? I grew up in a family where my father was
into it all the time, and my mother, who was a public health nurse for 32 years,
saw it all too. I think it was kind of inherited in me. I really believe that
we're all here for the right reasons. All these new MHAs I don't know most of
you yet, but I'm sure you're here for the people who elected you, or else you
wouldn't be here. People voted for you because they thought you'd be the best
person to represent them. That's what we're doing here. We're representing
people in our area.
Mr.
Speaker, I look at our budget and I understand. Listen, we all understand that
these are difficult times, these are very difficult times. I knocked on the
doors in Cape St. Francis, and I can honestly say I think I got every one of
them. The last day I was there, there was one road I had to do the last night
and I got there and I knocked on the doors. I think I got them all.
When I
knocked on the doors in the District of Cape St. Francis I made one promise. I
made one promise and people would say, oh, a politician coming by. What are you
going to promise now? What are you going to give me? I said, I'm not going to
give you anything. All I'm going to tell you is, if you pick up the phone and
make a phone call to me, I'll do my best to answer and advocate on your behalf.
That's my job as an MHA.
I'm sure
you guys and ladies over on the other side are in the same boat that I am. You
advocate for the people who elected you. It's so important we realize that. We
can get all on the go, whether it's PC, Liberal or NDP, the one person and the
people that are our bosses are the people who elected us. We cannot forget that.
We have to remember who put us here, because they are the key. They are the ones
who I represent and you represent.
I'm not
here today to criticize or say anything to anyone. I got phone calls over the
last number of weeks well, week now since the budget from all kinds,
everywhere in the province. I had one from Bonavista, I had one from Harbour
Grace, I had Harbour Main. Listen, I make a point that I stay in my office and I
return my calls, I return my emails and I listen to what the people say. That's
what we all have to do, because again, I said they're the people who got us
here. It's so important.
Like I
said, I made one promise and I'm going to keep my promise. I guarantee you, and
I can guarantee the people of Cape St. Francis, that I will keep my promise to
them. That I'll work hard on their behalf, I'll advocate on their behalf, and
when they call me, I'll respond to them. I've received hundreds and hundreds of
calls. I've received them from seniors. I've received them from young people.
I've received them from all over the place.
I was
around this weekend and I made a point to go all over my district to listen to
people. I was in my neighbourhood, down talking to my neighbour who's an
80-year-old man that blows me away every day. He gets on his bike and goes in
the woods and cuts wood. He got enough wood down there I told him on Saturday,
I said, b'y, you must have enough wood now for six years. I think he does, too;
but he loves in the woods.
He's
concerned. He said, Kevin, look at me, where am I going to get the extra $3,000
or $4,000? Him and his wife were there. They have, I think, four or five
grandchildren that they absolutely idolize their grandchildren. That's what
they talked about, the things that we do with our grandchildren today. We help
the little one in dancing or we help the little fellow go to hockey or whatever.
The bit of extra money we had, this budget is going to take away. That's where
we are. This budget is going to take away those few extra dollars.
I know
there are supplements there and I know you did put some money back to those
people. When you look at that gentleman and he said to me the weekend, my
house insurance is up, so now it's 15 per cent more. My car insurance, we're all
paying I don't know, I thought I heard yesterday that in the last three or
four years car insurance has gone up by 25 per cent. So we're going to add
another 15 per cent on that. We're adding it on to those people.
Like I
said, we have to remember who put us here. We have to be fair to the people who
put us here. Some people can pay, some people can't. I'm sure every one of you
ladies and gentlemen on the other side have gotten the same calls that I have.
The calls that I'm getting are saying, listen, this has gone too far. I can't
afford it. There's no way I'm going to be able to do it.
I had a
family that I spoke to the weekend. The lady said, Kevin, we have two small
children, we have two cars. There's no way we can afford to have one car. My
husband works in the evening and I have to have a car in case the kids are
around so that we have two small she figured that all the increases and
everything else is going to cost her about $6,000 or $7,000. That's what she
figured.
She
figured, you've got two car insurances, you've got your house insurance. Their
income is around $40,000 each a year. They make around $100,000. You add it up.
Maybe I don't know, maybe she doesn't know. Maybe you're the only ones who know
the answers. Do you know what? She figured out how much it's going to cost. She
said, what am I going to cut out? What will we cut out with our two children?
I know
today we don't have families like we had years ago. I grew up and I played
sports and everything all my life. It wasn't until I was 16 years old I finally
got a new pair of skates, because they were all handed down to me. Today, things
have changed big time. We have to remember, it is so important that we listen to
the people who are emailing us and that we listen to the people who are calling
us. We have to listen to them.
I saw a
little clip last night on Facebook I was just going through there and it was
the Premier. He was out in Grand Falls to a fundraiser or something. It looked
like it was a dinner or something like that. The sign behind him said: people
matter. Then I listened to what he had to say. What he said was: in order to
lead, you have to listen in order to lead, you have to listen.
I say to
all the Members on the opposite side and the Members on this side, in order to
represent the people in this House of Assembly properly, we have to listen. We
have to listen to their concerns. I mean, we can all get up here and say, well,
that's not going to happen, this is not going to happen, but talk to the people
that are in fear. This is fear that's happening to people. There's no one over
there who can tell me that they're not hearing it because you've got to be
hearing it.
People
are nervous. People don't know if they're going to be able to put food on the
table. They don't know whether they're going to be able to pay their light bill.
I heard from people the weekend that told me I don't know if I'm going to be
able to afford car insurance. That's sad. That's a sad thing.
The
people are talking to us. The people are calling us. The people are emailing us.
I listened to CBC the other morning and then I hear they don't understand;
people don't understand. Don't think people don't understand; they do
understand. They understand that all these fees it's going to cost more to
insure their car. It's going to cost more to license their car. It's going to
cost more to go to a park.
There
are things we had to do, there's no doubt. I'm not saying there are not things
we had to do here. I know that, but we can't take money directly out of their
pockets. Give them a choice. Don't be taking money directly out of their
pockets. People have to have house insurance; people have to car insurance. This
levy and I argued with you today when I got up and did my petition is taking
money out of people's pockets.
Just
think about it. I understand the HST. The HST, if a person has a choice they'll
buy something and it'll have to but at least if you don't have to money to buy
it, you can't do it. The other taxes that they're charging, people have to take
it out of their pockets. I think that's the thing that you're missing; I really
do. I really believe that's what you're missing because you're not listening to
the people that elected you. That's where they're coming from. You talk to them.
We all see the emails. We all know the emails and we know what people are
saying.
One
thing that really concerns me and I heard the Minister of Finance today get up
and do her speech and everything else and she talked about taxes. I'm not going
to be shameful or ashamed of what I wasn't here in 2007. Do you know what?
People had more money back then. I believe someone told me it was $4 billion
that was saved through reduction of taxes over the last number of years. That's
not a bad thing. That's a real good thing. Do you know what that did? That gave
people the ability to buy things, people to be able to put their children in
dancing or hockey or whatever. That's a real good thing.
Mr.
Speaker, in 2003 this province was in hard shape, no doubt. We're in hard shape
today. In 2003, when it came to poverty in this country, we were at the highest
of the scale. Out of all the provinces, the hardest place to live, the more
poverty than any other province in the country was here in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Guess
what happened? We did these things; we reduced the income tax people were
paying. We brought in the Home Heating Rebate. We invested in our
municipalities. We did all these things. Guess what it was last year? We went
from the worst to the best. We were talked about everywhere else in Canada. How
did you do it? Do you know how we did it? We invested in the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now,
what is this budget going to do to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador? Mr.
Speaker, I know the Minister of Finance was up today and said we're at the same
rates we were in 2006 or 2005, whatever she mentioned. But because it was in
2005, is that a good thing? Going backwards is not a good thing. I'd like to see
our people have more money to spend.
Again,
we're living in a hard time. We depend a lot on oil. People will say squandering
the money, and the Member got up and he talked about all the great municipal
investments in municipalities, and I don't think that's squandering money at
all.
I mean,
we know there need to be schools built in the area. I got two schools one
getting built right now, and Holy Trinity that got built. I have renovations
done on a school in Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove. We had renovations done
listen, I will never apologize for giving our kids better education. I'll never
apologize for giving our children free school books. I'll never apologize for
teachers telling me this the best they've ever seen the education system in this
province.
I'm not
going to apologize for making those investments, and they're not squandering $25
billion, because they're investments in our youth. I'm not going to get up here
and say that because we have the lowest tuition in all of Canada and every young
Newfoundlander gets the opportunity to go to Memorial University or the College
of the North Atlantic I'm not apologizing for that. No, I'm not going to. I
think they were great investments, and I think our young people are great
investments.
Mr.
Speaker, I just look at our seniors. I just came off an election, and the
hardest thing on an election is when you knock on the door and a senior comes to
the door and they want to talk to you. You feel like you're obligated to talk to
them, because they love politics. They really do love politics. A lot of them
came from times when times were pretty rough, and they'll tell you the story
about how we grew up on this and how we had to take the roll of sticks to school
with them. I mean, my father used to be telling us stories all the time half
the time I didn't believe him. He was a great storyteller, but he could tell the
stories about how they were back then.
When you
talk to the seniors and see what they did for us and know that we're going to do
something back for them, whether it's a program that's run through the
Department of Health that makes them more active, whether it's a Home Heating
Rebate that gives them a few dollars back on their heating.
Mr.
Speaker, the seniors with this budget are nervous. They believe and all you
people again that this is an attack on them, and it is. It's an attack on the
poor, it's an attack on the working class and it's an attack on the middle
class.
You need
to make hard choices. No doubt about it, you need to make hard choices, but I
think your choices are just too hard. I really believe they're too hard. I ask
all of you to just reconsider some of it. I really don't believe in that levy at
all. I think that's way too harsh on the middle class and people in our
province.
What
it's going to do is take money out of people's pockets. When you take money out
of people's pockets, what do you do? I talked to a business owner this week a
business owner that has a small restaurant. He said, Kevin, I'm just barely
making it. Now with all these taxes it's just as well for me to close down my
business.
You
close down that business and how many other small businesses before and we're
going to put people on the unemployment line. We're going to have young people
who are working in restaurants to try to help subsidize some of the way they get
through school. They're not going to get a job anymore.
Look
what you're doing to the people of the province; you're attacking the wrong
people. You're attacking the middle class, the young and the seniors. I just ask
that you reconsider some of these costs that you're putting on the poor people
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Lane):
Order, please!
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Thanks, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to stand and have an opportunity to participate in the first round of
discussion on the budget. Before I get into some of the information I want to
share, I just want to say thanks to the Wigmore Seniors Association. I was over
there on Saturday. They had a turkey soup lunch.
We
recognized a number of volunteers there including Ms. Pearl Power, Ms. Gertrude
Holwell and Mr. Ralph Power for their contributions to the community. There are
so many people who actually help out with the association that you could do a
20-minute speech naming them all. I also wanted to single out Debbie Hanlon who
has been great support to the association and gives freely of her time to
support the people who live over there.
I was
able to have a good discussion with the people about the budget. There's no
doubt it's a difficult budget. We all have acknowledged that here in the House
of Assembly. The amount of misinformation that's being spread about the budget
is astounding. This is my fifth year in the House of Assembly, but I haven't
really seen anything quite like this, the way that it's circulating on social
media and so on.
The
Member just got up from Cape St. Francis and talked about how somebody is going
to I don't know, middle-income earner or somebody was going to have a $6,000
increase in taxes. I don't know where he's getting that, but if that's the sort
of information he's giving out to people I suggest he get people to contact the
Department of Finance and get the correct information, because you don't want to
be at that.
The
Members opposite have been talking about the blame game, the blame game. The
former Minister of Health, the Member for Mount Pearl North, got up and talked
about how he's more than willing to take responsibility. Well, a couple of weeks
ago maybe you want to take responsibility before this session of the House is
over for this. A couple of weeks ago there was a story circulating in the media
about how kids at the Janeway had stickers taken away from them. Immediately
Members opposite, and their surrogates on social media, are pinning this all on
the current government. So we went back to see what happened.
The
decision to take stickers away from children, sick kids at the Janeway, was made
in November when that Member was Minister of Health. He said he didn't know
anything about it. Ignorance is no defence. He was the minister responsible for
Health. It was made before the election, so he was still the Minister of Health.
So he should take responsibility for something that happened on his watch,
instead of taking it to social media to try to pin it on somebody else.
Now I
wanted to say something else about social media as well, Mr. Speaker. The Member
talks about personal attacks on social media. I had somebody contact me today,
somebody who's not involved actually, it was yesterday in politics very
much. They said they'd been watching some of the budget debate on Twitter.
There's
a researcher who works in the office of the Official Opposition, he's the former
Member for Terra Nova. The person said to me, he said: the person has attacked
almost exclusively the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave, the Member for
Harbour Main, the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, the Minister of
Health. She said, why would women get involved in politics? You've got this sort
of political misogyny that infects our political system. It's absolutely
shameful.
Then
some of the image that Sandy Collins has been out there spreading across, it's
absolutely beneath any Member of the House of Assembly, current, former or
future. I mean, it's absolutely sad.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
To be targeting female
Members of our caucus, I think is absolutely ridiculous. That needs to stop.
People need to show more respect for one another if we're going to have a
civilized conversation about the problems that we have in this province.
I remind
the Members opposite as well that David Cochrane wrote a piece on CBC the other
day a piece on the website. I encourage him to go read it. Yes, people are
angry about the decisions in the budget, there's no doubt about that, but it
certainly goes a long ways to explaining which is what we're trying to do
how we got into this problem to begin with. It wasn't just oil; it was reckless
spending. Don't take it from me; take it from journalists in the province who
know what the truth of the matter is.
The
Members over there are talking about oh, we need a free vote. They've been
getting more emails than they ever got. Actually I've been getting emails, but
I've never gotten any emails like I got when those Members were whipped into
voting for Bill 29. I haven't gotten any emails like I got when those Members
were whipped into voting for Muskrat Falls. I don't know if those Members didn't
check their email in previous budgets
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
but their budgets I got
lots of emails from the public, in every budget, every time we've been in here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
The fact that we're getting
emails yes, we're getting emails. People are rightly angry and we respect
that. There's no question about that.
I wanted
to say a couple of other things. The Member for St. John's Centre said something
about the people what about the people making $900,000 a year? First of all,
if you go to look at Statistic Canada's income breakdown for this province,
there aren't a whole lot of people making $900,000 a year in this province.
There are probably 1,000 people in the province.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KIRBY:
Yeah, not a lot of people
making more than either. There are not a lot of mystery millionaires out there
to solve this problem that the province has been thrown into. If somebody
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KIRBY:
Incidentally, I don't know
why the Member is heckling constantly over there.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Each
Member of the House is going to have their turn to speak in debate. I have
recognized the Minister of Education to speak and I wish to hear the Minister of
Education speak and no others.
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thanks, Mr. Speaker.
I didn't
yell across the way at the Member for St. John's Centre when she got up to
speak, so I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
If there
are actually people that thousand people or so who are making $900,000,
they're taxed at 18.3 per cent as a result of this budget. I don't know if the
Member thinks the person should be paying more than whatever it is, $150,000
worth of income tax. That seems like a large sum of money.
We've
increased taxes the highest on the highest income earners. There are thousands
and thousands and thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of
additional dollars coming from higher income earners. So this business about how
all the low-income and middle-income earners are taking all the brunt is nothing
more than somebody's concocted fantasy. They can legitimately oppose the budget.
That's part of the parliamentary process, but to be out there spreading this
sort of information, getting people worked up based on nonsense makes absolutely
no sense.
Not only
that, I just say to the Members of the Third Party caucus, if you read the
document here, The Economy, Budget 2016,
it says and I won't go too far into this The oil and gas industry
(including support activities) is the largest contributor to provincial GDP.
Three point six per cent of total employment. It goes on to explain the
contribution of the oil and gas industry to this province.
Now, the
Members' political party had a meeting in Alberta there a couple of weeks ago
where they decided that they're going to now look at getting rid of fossil fuel
use in the country altogether. What would that do to our oil and gas industry in
this Province? I don't know; I haven't heard any clear answers. Were they
talking about getting rid of it altogether?
The
irony in this, Jerry Dias, who is probably one of the greatest union leaders in
Canada today, came out and he said, you know, those members who flew up to
Edmonton to go to the conference, they didn't go on a solar-powered 737, because
those things don't exist. So there was some jet fuel involved in that. So I mean
there's hypocrisy and then there's that, Mr. Speaker. So spare me the
sanctimony.
Again,
the blame game, we've had everyone from the former premier to all the other
Members of the Official Opposition saying you're blaming us, you're blaming us.
Well, of course we're blaming you.
It's
bizarre to hear them complain the way they did. I went back and I looked at
speeches given by the Members opposite and some of the ones that aren't there
anymore the last time we met in the House of Assembly. You can go back and look
in Hansard, April 21, 2015, the Member for Humber Bay of Islands got up and he
said when they gave the Speech from the Throne, the Premier started criticising
the Liberals from 2003. Nearly every day we came in the House of Assembly here
in the dying days of the last administration and they talked about stuff that
went on 12 years ago, that nobody here I don't even think the Member for
Humber Bay of Islands was in the House of Assembly at the time. The former
premier said on June 8: If you layoff large numbers of people like the Liberals
did back in the early 1990s, that's what you do, you cut it; you just cut, et
cetera, et cetera.
Derrick
Dalley, Mr. Pollard, Sandy Collins, Felix Collins, Clayton Forsey, Ray Hunter,
all these Members day after day after day, including the Members present who
were here in the House of Assembly, getting up over and over again criticizing a
government that was in office over a decade before. This idea that somehow the
current administration blaming the previous for the most recent horrific mess
that they created with the Treasury of this province, that this is somehow out
of line or unusual, is absolutely not the case.
I'll now
move to some specific things about the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development because there's been a significant amount of
misinformation that's been spread about changes in my department. I don't know
if Members just haven't looked at the Estimates document or reviewed any of the
supplementary materials. We will have Estimates here on Tuesday and Members will
have an opportunity to ask questions if they so choose.
One of
the big problems we have in Newfoundland and Labrador today is a declining
population. It didn't start happening on November 30, I say to the Members
opposite. So before you start heckling and cajoling over there and blaming us
for that, you were there for 12 years, use your imagination.
Student
population has a steady decline from about 80,000 students in 2004 to about
67,000 in 2015. So we've had a significant reduction in the student population.
This year there were supposed to be a number of positions removed from the
system, I believe it was 36, because of declining enrolment. Instead of letting
those positions go, we decided to keep 27 of them and deploy them for inclusive
education.
We have
27 more teachers for special education now than we did well, we will once the
budget passes. There is also additional support for children with special
education needs in the form of 115 additional hours a day for student assistant
time. People will say that's not enough. People can say that's not enough.
That's a legitimate argument. I agree with them, but we're doing what we can
with the mess that we inherit. It's really that simple.
There's
some suggestion out there that school supplies were reduced in the budget. There
was a line, and it's just simply a line in Estimates. It's just the way I guess
folks who deal with the finances of the province categorize things. There's no
reduction in classroom supplies to teachers or students in this budget. All
that's going on here is there is a delay in the implementation of a new course.
That falls under the curriculum materials center, that's part of school
supplies.
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible) class sizes.
MR. KIRBY:
I'll get to class sizes, but
I don't know why the co-leader of the NDP keeps yelling across the House of
Assembly. You'll have your opportunity to get up and speak just the same as me.
There's no reason to heckle across the way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
You'll have an opportunity if
you want to talk about class size.
School
infrastructure, the Member for Carbonear Harbour
MS. P. PARSONS:
Harbour Grace Port de
Grave.
MR. KIRBY:
Harbour Grace Port de
Grave, I'll get it right eventually is rightly concerned that Coley's Point
Elementary has been delayed. I went back, I spoke to the previous Member, Roland
Butler, for the area a few nights ago and he was advocating for that when he was
here in the House of Assembly.
I went
back and I dug up a consultant's report that was buried by the then Education
Minister at the time, that was basically buried Joan Burke was her name. So
this was buried, but back then, 2007, it was demonstrated that school should
have been replaced. There's 12 schools in the province right now that are over
60 years old and they probably all should be replaced, but we can only do what
we can do with the mess we've inherited.
There's
been no acknowledgement whatsoever that there's a $106 million investment in
school infrastructure projects in this budget. None at all, and the ironic thing
about this is most of the new schools that are being built are in the districts
of the Opposition Members. How ironic, that all the schools, that are basically
all the schools just like the fire trucks
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
are all being built in
Opposition Members' districts.
When I
came into office I started getting inquiries from these Members saying: When's
my school going to be built, when's my school going to be built? Now, I'll tell
you something, Mr. Speaker, how long do you think it takes to build a school?
I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker. On average, it takes 24 months to build a school in
this province. I guess it's our weather and a combination of factors, et cetera,
start to finish.
These
Members went out, ministers went out and sent out press releases and gave
schedules of school construction that were far more aggressive than anyone in
the Department of Transportation and Works ever advised them to do. They were
going to build these schools in 14 months. Can you even build a house in 14
months? They were going to build an entire school in 16 months and 18 months.
All
these schools are now behind schedule and I have the Members bellyaching to me,
getting their constituents all worked up and sending to me because their school
is delayed. We had nothing to do with it. They picked schools that they wanted
to be built in their own districts, they gave out misinformation about how
quickly they could be built, and now they're over there complaining they're not
being built fast enough.
One of
the Members over there was the minister of Transportation and Works. Now he's
out there and he said I pretty well guarantee that this school I'm convinced
this school is going to be built and be ready for September. That school is not
going to be ready for September. We'll be lucky if that school is going to be
ready for January. That's a significant disruption for people who were told the
opposite. I was actually at a public meeting where he said that basic thing.
People are complaining about that, and there's no acknowledgement of the amount
of money that's being put into this.
Another
thing, you have the Member for Mount Pearl North over getting people worked up
about St. Peter's Primary. I don't know where he's getting all of his
information from, but he's getting people worked up about that. We know there's
a problem. Do you know what? We're building an extension. Government is
continuing the previous government's commitment to build an extension to St.
Peter's Primary in Mount Pearl. It was only in April 2015, a year ago, that this
government put anything in place to address that by way of extension.
Do you
know how long, Mr. Speaker, it takes to build that extension? Two years. If the
Member for Mount Pearl North who was the deputy premier, he was a Cabinet
minister, he was in the front bench there I suppose he had some influence. If
he wanted that extension built sooner, why didn't they have it announced in
2014? Why didn't he have it announced a year before?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
They made the decision and
now he's complaining about it and, like I said, whipping people up and sending
people in. I think it's really unfortunate too, Mr. Speaker, because that
government brought in full-day kindergarten and we all supported it. We all
supported it because we know the return on investment is significant and our
kids deserve the best start they can get in life.
We have
Members of both Opposition parties out there suggesting that we postpone the
program now, postpone the program, after we spent well over $10 million, close
to $20 million, I would say, if not over that, on preparations, on extensions,
on modulars, on all sorts of work that we have in play right now, professional
development, preparation in terms of purchase of curriculum materials. Now they
want it all put on hold to the detriment of our children, and I think it's
absolutely shameful to put our kids out there and use that as some sort of and
it's a small amount of money, by the way, the investment overall is anyways. You
would never solve the colossal mess you created by getting rid of full-day
kindergarten.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I got to
say, I was glad the clock finally ran out. After 20 minutes of listening to
that, now, I'll correct him on one, he couldn't name me, because I wasn't in the
House the last session. He named everyone else. I believe he went back 10 or 12
years on naming members. He's even naming people who are not in the House who
work for us. We got a good bunch and I'd like to remind him Sandy, we're going
to keep him for a while, because I know you'd like to have him with you, but he
does good work.
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible) political
appointment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Eddie, give it up; Eddie,
you're at it again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
It's a great honour to stand
in this House, Mr. Speaker, and speak on the budget.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member that Members of the House are to be referred to by district or
title.
MR. PETTEN:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible) not Eddie.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
It's an honour to stand in
House and speak on the budget. I'd like it to be better, I'd like to be speaking
on a better document, but as we heard recently it is what it is and I guess we
have to live with what we got.
Mr.
Speaker, the point that was just said by the hon. Minister of Education, he
called it nonsense, we're getting on with nonsense, and I heard the other day we
were creating an element of fear. I welcome anyone, if they want to read the
emails and the messages I've gotten and my colleagues I'm sure most of them have
gotten in the last week, it's a lot of heart-wrenching stories there.
One is a
lady, she has five children, she's in a basement apartment and she's struggling
to survive. She doesn't know how she's going to do it. I got others, a single
parent that's a single-income family; they got a child that has a serious
illness. They are struggling now to make ends meet; they don't know how they're
going to do it.
These
people are not saying the Liberals are horrible or this or that; they're just
saying we don't know what we're going to do. We don't know. We're desperate. It
is pretty heart wrenching. So I just want to remind the Minister of Education
that is not nonsense, and you're welcome to read any email I got here. If you
want to call that nonsense, I'll tell every single one of them in my emails the
Minister of Education thinks it is nonsense. Maybe all of you think it is
nonsense. I don't.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot
and see the protesters today and it seems to be one common theme: the tax levy.
I heard Members opposite say that we're wrong on our calculations. My colleague
showed the table for the tax levy. We're being told by Members opposite we don't
know how to calculate it. Well, we are only reading what's on the piece of
paper. You know better than us; you understand it better than us. There are only
31 of you or the 30 of you, whatever, the rest of the province don't understand
it.
We're
reading from a piece of paper as they are. If we're wrong, I'd love for you to
tell the people and I seriously say that in all honesty; I do. I think the
public needs to know that because what we're calculating, we're coming up with
recently it was on Facebook. We saw this guy and he was doing his own personal
situation. He comes up with about $6,000 for his family.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Good source of information:
Facebook.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, well these come from
real people, Mr. Speaker. They are real people. They are not just in here living
in a bubble; they are real people. They are out on the street; they are
hard-working families.
You can
go 15 per cent on your insurance, that's going to bring most people I'll use
my own home. That's $1,000 extra out of my pocket and I'm not living in the
lavish lifestyle. I have a few things around me. Add the levy on, add the gas on
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
All of a sudden you have
$5,000 or $6,000; that's not hard to come by, Mr. Speaker it is hard to come
by, but it's not hard to add up to.
If you
want to break that down and break it into real dollars that the general public
understands, that's $400 to $500 a month. That's a car payment. That's light and
heat for a lot of homes. That's a half a mortgage payment.
I'll
refer back once again, how anyone could refer to those complaints and those
concerns as nonsense, it appalls me. It does. Honest to God, it's terrible. I
couldn't believe I was listening to it. I'll refer back to that every time
because these people are not on the front of this building because they want to
be. They are not all emailing me 11:30 in the night with tears telling me they
are crying as they are writing the email because they want to be.
I'll be
honest, we can get in here and have our banter back and forth. When I respond to
emails, I'm not into this partisan I don't bash people; I just tell them my
honest opinion. That is true and you're welcome to read my emails, Mr. Speaker.
Like I
said, it bothers me to no end. When you get real people coming out and doing
protests, they're crying out for help, and we're just being told (inaudible)
this is the only solution.
I don't
think it is the only solution. I think there were lots of other things we could
have done. A levy to me, it's the better form of a head tax, a cover charge.
It's temporary, but like we said earlier, income tax was brought in 100 years
ago to be temporary, and as we know that's still here.
Another
note on the budget, too, a lot of people feel like they've lost their hope,
they've lost their way. As someone told me the other day, we did have a bit of a
bounce in our step. We felt good as a people. We felt good where we were. They
feel all that's gone.
I hear
it's really sad people want to leave the province. They don't want to come
home anymore. Being a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, this is where everyone's
heart is. No one wants to leave this place. It's in their blood. They go away
and they always find their way back, and to hear people saying that on a regular
basis, it is bothersome, Mr. Speaker. That does pull at my heart strings.
The only
thing I'll say, based on the feedback I've gotten from my constituents, I
understand Members opposite are in a difficult situation, I really do. The
people who elected them the people who elected all of us for that matter there
in the district, they obviously we live in different areas of the province,
but I'm sure the same issues are in all the Member's districts. We all hear the
same thing. They're going to be faced with a tough decision.
I
understand party politics. I understand you toe the party line and you vote with
government, and I get that. I understand it, but the type of anger I've heard on
the streets over this time we've had other budgets over the years where there
has been some slash back, but there's a lot of anger. That's the only way to
describe it. People have said it to me, there's fear and anger out on the
street. As much as we were accused, we're not the ones who are conjuring this
up. It's real, it's there and it's troubling.
Like I
said, Members opposite, I respect the situation they're in and I know they are
faced with tough decisions. They'll vote for the people who put them there. They
will vote for your party. So that's a different situation. It's one they're
going to have to answer to.
I know
on this side of the House I told someone the other day, actually I told my
colleagues, if that was brought down by our government, that budget, I would be
kicked out of my party because I would never have been able to vote for it.
That's a very honest and anyone can quote me. I can be quoted forever and a
day. That's a true statement. I would sit as an Independent if it meant me
having to vote for that budget.
To
listen to what my constituents tell me, I couldn't do it in a clear conscience.
Anyone can quote me. I don't know how long I'm going to be in this House. You
can quote me and you can bring it up to me down the road if you want, but that's
an honest statement, Mr. Speaker. I've told my constituents that and I will
state it here in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
We hear lots of broken
promises and stuff, but during the election I was going door to door and we knew
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
We knew the outcome was the
Liberals were doing well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
I went door to door and
people bought into this. They said they're going to diversify the economy;
they're going to put the HST back. There are not going to be any layoffs in the
public service.
Any
given day when you go back and look at your Blackberry, you see tweets coming in
from candidates and they were backing this up. Who am I to say they're wrong?
I'm like, yes, very good. That's their platform, good on them. That was November
30 and here we are in April five months, four months not even five months
and we know that wasn't as accurate as we had thought.
I'll say
to the Members opposite, this is something they're going to have to face with
their own constituents. I do sympathize with them. I really do and I honestly
do. I can't stress that enough because it seems like everywhere you turn people
that don't even talk politics want to get their two cents worth on the budget.
My
neighbours across the way, we have a great relationship but we never talk
politics. They couldn't wait to get to me to talk. They were like how do you do
this? What do we do about this? There's a process. How does this vote work? I
explained how it worked. Most of the time you go, it's not a free vote, you vote
with your party and if you don't, there are consequences to pay.
It's
only now if you ever notice, you follow it around and there's a big movement
out there in the social media world. People never really realized; they never
paid attention to the process. It's interesting, I suppose, people have educated
themselves. I've always followed politics, I always knew about the free vote,
the party vote and the Whip vote, we'll call it. Now the general public has
caught on hold on a second, 40 MHAs vote for this budget, or 39 in case of tie
or however that works. People don't get that. The public doesn't get that. Now
they do. They're all of a sudden it's a revelation to them, which is kind of
sad, but we all know everyone don't follow politics like we do.
It's a
pretty interesting time we're living in now, Mr. Speaker, and it seems like you
can never get away from the conversation of the budget. Members opposite, like I
said, this is something they're going to have to focus on and make their own
decisions, and I wish them well.
Mr.
Speaker, in the remaining time I have left, I hear all the time and I know
I've spoken in Interim Supply the waste of money and all that well, fair
enough. I think I said it then, and I'll say it again. I don't there is any
government that is ever going to go in power that is not going to waste some
money. There's not a household that doesn't waste some money.
You say
$25 billion. Ten of that $25 billion were equalization payments we used to
receive. We lost equalization, so really, in fact, there was $15 billion, new
dollars. That's never, ever put in there.
Just a
few of the investments that are considered to be a waste of money: in
infrastructure there was $6.28 billion spent since 2003; $1.5 billion in health
care; $560 million in transportation infrastructure; $1.27 billion in municipal
infrastructure; $1.8 billion in roads and buildings; $1.06 billion in education
infrastructure.
There's
nothing in that list, to me, that's a waste of money. Maybe it may be, but I
don't see a waste of money there. Grenfell Arts and Science extension, $27
million; College of the North Atlantic, Lab West campus, $21 million, almost $22
million; Labrador Straights Academy, $15.6 million; Placentia lift bridge, $52
million that's a waste of money. Does anyone see a waste of money yet? No.
Trans-Labrador Highway $565.7 million boy, another waste of money, I guess.
Carbonear long-term care facility $108.2 million; Bonavista community care
residence, $2.6 million; Labrador West Health Centre, $90 million.
Now
we're into health care Minister Haggie will appreciate this. Dialysis
equipment, we doubled
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Oh sorry, sorry, sorry.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. Member to
refer to members by district or title.
MR. PETTEN:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
The
number of dialysis sites in the Province has doubled since 20013; $8.2 million
in dialysis; $10.5 million in MRI equipment; $10.5 million in X-ray machinery;
$13.8 in mammography equipment; $14.7 million in ultrasound equipment; $20.8
million, CT scanners; four dedicated treatment centres, Mr. Speaker.
What
else do we have here? The list is just too long. I'm skipping through it. I'm
just only reading out the big stuff; water treatment facilities in Marystown and
Corner Brook, $65.6 million.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. PETTEN:
I'll give you a copy of that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Recreation facilities, $26 million; Corner Brook city hall, $23 million;
Provincial Parks, $10.7 million I do enjoy reading this, Mr. Speaker water
bombers, $150 million. Has anyone found a waste of money yet? I'm asking
honestly, is there a waste of money?
Did you
hear a waste of money?
AN HON. MEMBER:
No.
MR. PETTEN:
No. We've got more yet.
The tax
adjustments the Minister of Finance so politely told us that it was a waste,
terrible, that put $4.2 billion back into taxpayers' pockets, Mr. Speaker $4.2
billion. Over $625 million was when you do the scale for 11 years, it totals
$4.2 billion. That's back in your pocket.
Like I
said, I can keep going through these lists. I enjoy going through them actually.
Like my
colleague for Cape St. Francis mentioned, we eliminated standard school fees.
That was a $62 million cost; free textbooks, $22 million; the Cultural
Connections program, $20 million; the Centre for Distance Learning, $70 million;
new schools, $731 million, including infrastructure spending. Mr. Speaker, 15
new schools, 10 more schools being constructed or in planning, 31 major
extensions and renovation projects have been completed, nine more renovation
projects underway and 1,930 repairs and maintenance projects. I'm at a loss. Is
there any frivolous spending here yet? I don't think.
What
else do we have here? The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills $120
million to keep Corner Brook Pulp and Paper alive; investment in wait times,
$160 million; mental health and addictions initiatives, $60 million;
Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, $1.6 billion since 2004.
There's going to be less than that this year because of this budget. We have
some cutbacks.
Oh, wait
now, the Provincial Solid Waste Management Strategy, $160 million.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It was all (inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
What? Oh wait now b'y, we
have more. Watch this: From 2008 to 2015 the provincial government invested
approximately $800 million more in 1,200 water, waste water and recreation
municipal infrastructure projects. It's incredible, Mr. Speaker.
I enjoy
doing that. I can get up another time, probably, at another opportunity I get. I
only have a portion of it read yet, so I'll share the rest with the House. I
don't think you can say we wasted any money there, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure they're
going to
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
I'm sure they're going to
try. I know they don't like to hear that because they like to tell the public
how we wasted money. I think if you shared that around the public would probably
say we could have probably spent a little bit less but when you look at it, no,
we never wasted money. It wasn't frivolous spending. I don't think it was
anything
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
It wasn't anything obscene,
Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, I'm coming to
the end of what I have to say. The clock is getting close to five.
One
thing I'd just like to close on saying here, Mr. Speaker, it pretty well sums up
what I've said about the budget. People are concerned. The public are crying out
for answers. They are looking to our new government to provide those answers, to
show leadership, to explain the situation to them.
If we
don't understand what's in the budget, well, I ask the government, in all due
respect, to tell the public what's in the budget because what we're seeing
it's not what we're seeing. They're telling us, we don't see it. Tell us so we
can tell our constituents what's not in the budget that we're missing.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, given the hour
of the day, I would move, seconded by the Member for Harbour Grace Port de
Grave, that the House do now adjourn.
Prior to
doing that, if I could also, just for the attention of the House, the next
committee of the Estimates will not be this Monday with the holiday. It will be
actually Tuesday, April 26, at 9 a.m. It will be Education and Early Childhood
Development.
Tuesday,
April 26, at 6 p.m. will be the Estimates for the Government Services Committee
for Service Newfoundland and Labrador and Government Purchasing Agency.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that this House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 Tuesday, Monday
being a holiday, at 1:30.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.