May
4, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 22
The
House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today for Members' statements
we have the Members for the Districts of Lewisporte – Twillingate, Fortune Bay –
Cape La Hune, Exploits, Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair and Stephenville – Port au
Port.
The hon.
the Member for Lewisporte – Twillingate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. D. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to recognize a young gentleman in my district from the community of
Herring Neck. Cameron Rice is currently 16 years old and attending grade 11 at
New World Island Academy. Cameron is a very active student participating in
school sports, the jazz band and also playing minor hockey.
Cameron
is better known in his community for all his dedicated volunteer service. At the
age of 13, Cameron really took a leadership role in the community. He was
instrumental in organizing the 2014 Come Home Year Celebrations. From the
success, Cameron, along with other volunteers, continued to host the annual
Herring Neck Dory Races.
During
the Christmas season, Cameron was concerned there was no community supper, so he
took it upon himself to organize a potluck meal for residents in his community.
He even paid for the Christmas decorations, tablecloths, plates and cutlery out
of his own money and being a talented musician, he performed to a full house.
Cameron
is a true testament of what our youth can do for the betterment of our
communities. Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in honouring Cameron
Rice for his dedicated volunteer service.
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 today to recognize the outstanding public speaking abilities
of youth in my district who participated in the Lions Club Annual Speak Offs,
local and zone, both of which were hosted this year by the St. Alban's Lions
Club.
The
first place winner was Julie Young whose topic this year was that music should
be a part of every child's life. Melanie Collier placed second and Bianca Stokes
placed third. Julie placed first at the local speak out with nine other
participants, and went on to win the zone speak out. Congratulations also to
Maggie Adams Vaslett who placed second at the zone speak out. From there, Julie
went on to compete in the Lions Club International District 3N Speak Out in
Corner Brook.
All
these extremely bright, young ladies continue to show their outstanding ability
for public speaking and they certainly make us all very proud. I would also like
to throw a bouquet to the Lions Clubs, teachers, parents and volunteers who
assist the young in developing their oratory talent and skills. I throw a
special bouquet to Julie's grandma, Ethel Burt, who was one of the best English
teachers ever.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join me in delivering accolades to all the
fine young ladies who show such courage in highlighting important issues and
concerns in our society today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to commend the Botwood Collegiate Robotics Team, which
has won a number of significant accolades over the course of the last eight
years it has been around.
On April
8, the team competed in the Skills Canada Provincial Competition and were
awarded a first-place finish. They will travel to Moncton in June to represent
Newfoundland and Labrador in the national Skills Canada competition. During last
year's national competition in Saskatoon, the team won silver.
I have
to commend teacher/sponsor Brian Antle, who is the vice-principal of Botwood
Collegiate. He has sponsored the team for eight years and also serves as the
provincial technical chair for the running the annual provincial competition in
St. John's.
His
sponsorship of the Robotics Team demonstrates his commitment to empowering his
students to develop technical and creative skills that will set them up for a
lifetime of success.
Please
join me in thanking Mr. Antle for his mentorship of the Botwood Collegiate
Robotics Team, and congratulate the team and wish them the best of luck as they
represent our province in the national competition in June.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize a burgeoning sport in my district. In September 2014, thanks
primarily to Didier Naulleau, a retired master warrant officer, a Judo club was
born in the Labrador Straits. Classes are held three times a week as an
extracurricular program of Labrador Straits Academy and open to ages 5 to 99.
The
Labrador Straits Academy Judo Club has 25 students, no monthly fees and is
operated by a group of very dedicated volunteers. Equipment was obtained through
fundraising efforts and complimentary delivery services from the Labrador
Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Ltd.
In April
eight students travelled to Gander to compete in their very first provincial
tournament and they walked away with a stellar showing. Colton McClean and Noah
Normore received gold; Jada Normore, Keegan Fowler and TJ Flynn received silver;
Michael Normore and Lucas Buckle received bronze; Corey Normore received a
participation medal and Jada Normore was named Most Spirited Judoka of the
tournament.
It's
simply remarkable when a small school walks away from a provincial tournament
with seven medals, demonstrating they can compete on the big stage.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Labrador Straits Academy Judo
Club and we wish them much luck into the future.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville – Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to acknowledge Michelle and Andre Jesso of Three Rock Cove. A husband and
wife team, Captain Andre and First Mate Michelle have fished together for over
30 years. Their boat, Wave on Wave, is
based out of Piccadilly and they fish in Port au Port Bay.
For the
past two years, this dynamic couple and their crew have been featured on the
Cold Water Cowboys television series.
Now in its third season, this show has put a tremendous spotlight on our
province's fishing industry. Fans of the show reach out from as far away as
Europe and Africa. Their following has earned them a celebrity status they never
anticipated.
They are
as passionate about helping others as they are about their profession. They've
used their newfound celebrity to do just that. Having held several very
successful fundraising efforts; they have contributed to organizations such as
the Bay St. George Women's' Centre and the Janeway. They have also partnered
with Coleman's Food Centre to promote healthy eating and the importance of
consuming healthy protein like fish in one's diet.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating Michelle and Andre Jesso on their
success and their ongoing efforts in being strong ambassadors for the fishing
industry and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
The Commemoration
of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel
MR. SPEAKER:
For Honour 100 today we have
the Member for the District of Gander.
MR. HAGGIE: 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: William Blackler Knight, Cecil James Knott,
Harold Knott, William Knott, William A. Knowling, George B. Lacey, Harry Lacey,
Robert Joseph Lahey, Anthony Joseph Lamb, Frederick Lambert, John Lambert, John
Lambert, Gideon Harland Lane, Malcolm Lane, John Langer, George Langmead, James
Joseph Lannigan, James Lannon, Michael Francis Lannon, William Joseph Lannon,
Francis Lavigne, William G. Lawrence, Samuel John Learning, Charley
Leary, Robert LeBuff, James Allen Ledingham, Edward LeDrew, George Hussey
LeDrew, Herbert LeDrew, John F. LeDrew, Albert Lee, Joseph Legge, Marcus Legge,
Walter LeGrow, Wallace James LeMessurier, James Leonard, Michael Leonard,
William Leonard, Manuel LePage, James H. LeRiche.
(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 to speak to all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians as we think about family and friends in Fort McMurray during the
devastating wildfire and resulting mass evacuation.
The wildfire that is currently raging in Alberta and those
impacted, including the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians living and
working there are foremost in our thoughts today. Like my hon. colleagues in
this House and all residents, we have seen the images carried on mainstream
media and through social media.
Last night our province reached out to offer help in
whatever way that was needed. Today, I have a call scheduled with the Alberta
premier, Rachel Notley, to
discuss this further.
Mr.
Speaker, the provincial government is ready to respond to the needs of the
residents of Fort McMurray. We are in contact with Alberta Agriculture and
Forestry to offer our assistance. We will coordinate our actions through our
Mutual Aid Resources Sharing Agreement and the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire
Centre, through the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency to make our resources
available.
While
sharing our resources, we will continue to be equipped to protect our province,
our people and our forest resources in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have
responded to other provinces in situations like this one. In the past we have
sent aircraft, firefighters and our Incident Management Team to Manitoba,
Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
Today is
International Firefighters Day. We want to take this opportunity to also thank
the courageous firefighters for keeping our family and our friends, both in
Alberta and right here at home, safe.
Our
thoughts and prayers are with Fort McMurray today. For anyone concerned about
the whereabouts of a friend or loved one in the area, please call the Alberta
Red Cross at 1-888-350-6070.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
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 providing us with an advance copy of his statement today. Mr.
Speaker, our thoughts along with the thoughts of the entire province are with
those in Fort McMurray, especially the 60,000 residents who have had to evacuate
their homes during this enormous tragedy.
While
the situation is still developing, it's our hope, of course, that they get the
proper assistance and support as soon as they can to assist them in these tragic
circumstances, so they can focus and turn a page and focus on rebuilding. I want
to acknowledge and thank the government for reaching out to Alberta and offering
support and assistance to the Fort McMurray area and the people that live there.
As we
know in this province, Fort McMurray has a very special place in our hearts for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It's served as a second home to so many of our
own family and friends.
I'm very
pleased as well to see the Canadian Red Cross is now accepting donations and
coordinating efforts to support people in their homes. I encourage everyone to
contact the Canadian Red Cross and do anything we can to lend a helping hand to
those in Fort McMurray.
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 Premier for an advance copy of his statement. We hold all the people
of Fort McMurray and our loved ones living and working here in our hearts. We
have not heard of a single fatality which is a great testimony to the emergency
response planners and firefighters courageously and generously battling this
terrible fire. We thank them for their service.
This
tragedy once again shows us the beauty of the human spirit with people reaching
out to help and protect one another. Thank you to all from this province gearing
up to help the people of Fort McMurray. We support the commitment to share our
resources to help the people of Alberta.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, today I would
like to provide an update on the Waypoints Foster Family Support Pilot Project.
This project is a collaboration between Child, Youth and Family Services, the
Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association and Waypoints.
Waypoints, a non-profit organization providing child and youth care for more
than 35 years, provides after-hours support, crisis response and training to
foster parents through this new pilot project. The project recognizes the
current skills and expertise of foster families and builds upon their
competencies, further enhancing the quality of care provided to children and
youth in care.
Currently, there are 17 foster families receiving support from the project and,
since January 2016, four training sessions have been provided –
The Impact of Trauma,
Effective Discipline, Developing
Relationships and Taking Care of
Yourself.
Mr.
Speaker, our government continues its commitment to child protection with
support of approximately $150 million in Budget 2016 which allows for ongoing
initiatives such as this pilot. We know the positive impact this initiative is
having on our foster families, and we will continue to work closely with
Waypoints and the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services for an advance copy of her
statement. We are happy to hear that the current government chose to continue
with this very valuable program, a partnership with a fantastic non-profit
community organization that has much to offer in such an arrangement.
The
Foster Family Support Pilot Project was developed in response to a growing need
for additional resources to support our province's foster families. We know that
there are increasing pressures on our foster system and the need for additional
foster families continues to grow. One way to ensure more people are willing to
come forward to become foster parents is to establish appropriate provisions.
Fostering, while so fulfilling, has its share of challenges. We need to make
sure we have the supports in place for these families. This pilot does just
that.
Before –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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 her statement. The Waypoints pilot
project providing foster families with on-the-ground support and training is a
great step forward. I commend the foster families in our province for the
important work that they do welcoming children into their homes and into their
families, children who so badly need their help.
Pilot
projects like this one will hopefully encourage more families to foster and that
the new supports to these families will become part of a permanent program.
Bravo!
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Liberals speaking points are changing on a daily basis in regard to this budget.
They've said that people don't understand. They've said the media don't get it.
Just yesterday, they blamed the Opposition parties for not explaining their
budget. They have no plan, no vision, no focus on the people who elected them.
It's time to show some leadership, some flexibility and respond to what people
are asking for.
I ask
the Premier: Will you listen as you promised to do? Will you reconvene your team
of leaders and revisit this budget?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the comments made yesterday, particularly those around the Opposition, were
really about not putting out some of the other information that was in this
budget that the Opposition is quite aware of. As a matter of fact, it was the
Opposition who even refused to come and get a briefing session on some of the
important elements around this budget: things like the Newfoundland and Labrador
Income Supplement where there is over $74 million available to help low-come
families; things like the $570 million in infrastructure spending that's
included in this budget. There are many other things.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, the fact around the levy. It is a temporary levy, one that as soon
as we are in a financial situation – the plan is already in place; that's been
outlined in this budget. It is a temporary levy, one thing the Opposition has
refused to continue to discuss.
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.
I remind
the Premier, it's not our job to sell their budget. It's the people of the
province who are having difficulty understanding this; as well, the media are
having difficulty. They're the ones who need the briefing from the government.
The
Minister of Finance, herself, seemed caught off guard yesterday when asked by
the media: Who will actually benefit from her own budget? She said it was
difficult to know, but that those most vulnerable will be protected. She went on
to say she wasn't sure if it was one or 100 or 1,000 people who would be better
off. She had no way of knowing.
I ask
the Premier: When your own caucus is having problems explaining your budget, how
do you expect the people of the province to make sense of the choices that
you've made?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, there are
424,000 tax filers in our province. Every single one of those tax filers has a
unique set of circumstances as to how they would be paying taxes and also how
they would be consuming products that would incur consumption taxes.
It would
be impossible for a province the size of ours to create a tool that will provide
an example of every single tax filer. What we have done, as I said in the media
yesterday, we have provided clarity with the Newfoundland Income Supplement
calculator so individuals who are the lowest income people can understand what
they're going to get, and we've also provided all the information in tax tables
so everybody else can see the information as well, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
trying to tell the Premier that it's the people of the province who are having
difficulty understanding the budget, Mr. Speaker. The minister can get up and
give us all the facts and figures here in the House, invite us over for
briefings, but it's the people of the province who are having difficulty
understanding the mixed messages that are coming from your government.
The
current Premier, he has told the people that we have a plan and the people are
going to like it. So I say to the Premier, I spoke to a lady today who just
barely gets by, a senior lady. She doesn't quality for the low-income supplement
that you rave about and she's in fear of paying her bills. She's looking for
some reason to feel that she's going to be okay.
So I ask
the Premier: You're on the record as stating that all seniors will be better off
in your budget, so what is in there for this lady?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, if
the former premier didn't know the answer to that, I would encourage the lady to
call our office and we will go through the options and the services that
available to someone in her position.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the point is that people don't understand. It's not about me telling
her who to call. They're not getting the message, Premier. They're not
understanding how they're going to benefit from this budget.
The
minister spent days and days and days telling people there was something bad for
everyone in the budget, and now you've switched and said no, it's a good budget.
People are confused by this.
Mr.
Speaker, they're angry. They feel personally betrayed by this Liberal
government. The Liberal sold people what many considered a fairy tale, a bunch
of magic beans and the Liberals told the people no tax increases, no layoffs, no
hardships and a stronger tomorrow. People can't find any of that, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier campaigned on the only thing he'll eliminate was waste. Teacher cuts,
health care workers, eliminating 40 long-term care beds, is this all the waste
that you said you were going to eliminate, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
former premier knows very well the numbers that he had access to long before the
election, refused to share them with the information – I would like to ask the
former premier: Why is it that he held on to that information? As a matter of
fact, the information in his own election platform that he campaigned on, that
the NDP campaigned on, the numbers were wrong when you released your platform
and the former premier knew the numbers were wrong at the time, yet refused to
make them public. I'd like to ask the former premier why he did not let the
people know that during your election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
If hon.
Members in this House want to be recognized by the Speaker, I'm asking you to
respect the person that the Speaker has recognized to speak, whether it's a
question or an answer. If Members continue and persist in interrupting when
another Member is speaking, they will not be recognized by the Speaker.
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate that.
Mr.
Speaker, last year in our budget, we laid it out for the people of the province
the circumstances we faced. We were going into a budget saying we were going to
increase taxes, we're going to reduce services and programs and the public
service. We went to an election saying we had to make hard decisions. Much
unlike what the Members opposite who promised the world to the people of the
province; they sold them a bill of goods, Mr. Speaker, is what they did. They
sold them a bill of goods.
Last
night, Mr. Speaker, right here in this House, the Minister of Education well, we
saw what I think was a meltdown. It was a temper tantrum at the very least. He
thumped his fist on the table and he stated no matter what he is going to cancel
leases on the regional library in Conception Bay South and the regional library
in Corner Brook if it was the last thing that he did.
Mr.
Premier, I'll ask you this: Do you support this type of behaviour by the
Ministers of the Crown that represent you? Do you support the closures of these
regional libraries? It is clear (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
speaking about poor behaviour, last year during the budget that the former
premier just mentioned, he outlined a plan for the province. His plan that he
said was the way forward for Newfoundland and Labrador. His plan last year said
that this year there would be less than $900 million in the deficit. In less
than one year – in one year, under his plan it would have been $2.7 billion.
Mr.
Speaker, that's a big miss. That miss would have led to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in just seven years owing for every man, woman and child nearly
$53,000 per person. That's the plan that the former premier is trying to defend.
He wanted the biggest industry in our province to be one paying interest on the
missed failures and the mismanagement of his administration.
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.
I'm
pleased to see that the Premier did not defend the minister's behaviour here in
the House last night. I would suggest to the Premier that investing in libraries
and in literacy is a much wiser investment than paying upwards of $500 per hour
for external legal and communications counsel. I think that would be a better
investment.
I ask
the Minister of Education: When you flip-flopped on your decision last night,
did you include this reduction in your budget? Was this part of your budget
plan, or did you just make this decision up last night based on the emotions we
saw in the House of Assembly yesterday?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I was emotional
in the House of Assembly last night because of Members opposite and individuals
referring to children with special education needs as leftovers. As I said last
night, I will not stand for children with disabilities being referred to in that
way, and discussions in this House of Assembly about the good students and then
the leftovers. I'm not going to stand for that.
I
apologize to the Member – who I didn't see him over there last night paying
attention to me. I apologize if he was upset about what I said.
What I
said last night was that we had two library operations that had a negligible
charge to government, and then the previous administration entered into
agreements to the tune of over $200,000 per library.
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.
Mr.
Speaker, since the budget, the Minister of Education confirmed to me, in a
conversation we had, that he was committed to the library in CBS. CBS must be
part of our regional system.
He
confirmed the funding was committed to. He went so far as to say you can
publicly say that the minister – he spoke to the minister and he is committed to
the project and funding. Feel free to tell whoever.
I ask
the minister: Why the change? What happened last night? Why the flip-flop?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, we are committed
to maintaining the library in Conception Bay South. There's no question about
that. I spoke to the mayor about that several times, including today. That's not
the problem.
The
problem with the CBS library proposal that was basically endorsed by the
Education minister of the day is that the previous operation, the lease cost
zero because it was in a municipal building. The lease that the previous
government endorsed is 25 years at $230,000 a year; from zero a year to $230,000
a year locked in for 25 years. That's the lease arrangement that they want for
CBS. The mayor himself has more or less said we can find a better deal than that
for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, two regional
libraries the minister has targeted, CBS and Corner Brook – he left out Corner
Brook; he's not alluding to that one. The regional library system that he's
proposing will serve one-fifth of the population, upwards of probably 100,000
people.
The
minister has touted the regional library system, yet now he says he's going to
close down – his quote today is a bit different than what he said last night. He
was pretty good last night in his tantrum. If it's the last thing he ever does
he was going to do that. I had to listen again this morning, Mr. Speaker, to
make sure I had his facts right.
I ask
the minister: It's a bit of a change in tone today, but how can you eliminate
two libraries when you're saying regional libraries are the future of the
province? That's not what you said last night.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, let's just recap
here. I did not say that.
The
Member for Mount Pearl North took to Twitter spreading false information about
what was said here in the House of Assembly and I ask anybody to review the
record. That's the Member for Mount Pearl North's record of behaviour around
this budget. So that's not true.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the problem with
the Corner Brook situation is that the previous library was in government owned
space that cost nothing additional to the people of the province. The minister
in that government put us into a situation where we're paying now over $200,000
a year in a 20-year lease. That's what they endorsed. There's a problem with
this. We went from zero in both instances to almost half a million dollars.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals promised to diversify the economy. We've been reviewing
the budget Estimates over the past couple of weeks and we haven't seen any
economic diversification revenue budget in current for future years. The only
revenue the Liberals will generate is from the pockets of the people through
taxes and fees.
I ask
the Premier: When will we see your heralded plan to generate revenue, or is it
simply to take a lazy way out and continue to tax, tax and more tax?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaking
of the lazy route, the route that this former administration had this province
on which would have led to an unprecedented amount of borrowing, 66 years since
Confederation, $12.4 billion in debt accumulated during that 66 years, that
would have doubled under your borrowing strategy. Is that what you call economic
diversification, go to the banks and find which one has a diversified portfolio
that you can borrow more money from?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, the question was
about his plan and what he was going to do. So from his answer there's no
revenue for economic diversification from the plan. So he's answered the
question. Alarming!
Mr.
Speaker, frustration is building as people do not understand the Liberal budget
choices. The Minister of Finance is having trouble explaining the budget to the
people of the province. Yesterday, in a media scrum the minister could not
identify who would benefit from the budget.
I ask
the minister: What groups are better off and how many people are doing better
based on your calculations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I think there
are many people in this province who are learning the harsh reality of this
budget in the context of what would have happened had we not taken action. We
are spending more than we have, we are borrowing the most we have in our history
and our costs and our risks of borrowing are greater than any province in
Canada.
Mr.
Speaker, this week, and up to the budget and since then, we have had individuals
who have reached out and said the people they want to make sure don't bear the
burden of the mistakes of the former administration are the ones in future
generations that they would like to punt this problem to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister isn't able to tell us who's going to benefit. So I'll ask her this: If
she doesn't know who's going to be affected, how can her revenue projections in
her budget, based on the levy, income tax and other taxes in the budget be
accurate when she doesn't know who's being affected and negatively affected and
what the revenue generation is going to be? How is your budget going to be
accurate?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, we realize that
this budget is a very difficult budget for the people of the province. There's
no doubt about that. Nobody in this House is ever going to argue that fact. The
reality is that had we done nothing, our province would have been faced with
significant risks to be able to finance the critical services that we have to
offer.
Mr.
Speaker, the Members opposite continue to not acknowledge the reality of the
very difficult fiscal situation that we are in. We invested $74 million to
ensure that the most vulnerable in our province are protected as part of this
budget. We will continue to make decisions on how to continue to mitigate those
things as time progresses, but we will not kick the can into the future and put
our province at risk of other crises.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No answer again, Mr. Speaker.
She's preparing a budget and she doesn't know what the impact to people is going
to be based on the rates and additional fees they brought in. We should be good
later in the year when they're trying to figure out how they're balancing their
budget or where they are with it.
Mr.
Speaker, a single, 22-year-old working mother with a young son tells me with the
increases in home and automobile insurance, increasing gas, no Home Heating
Rebate and all the other taxes and fees, even without including the Liberal
levy, she will lose at least $100 a month to her and her son to live.
I ask
the minister: Is this mother and her son in the group that is doing better?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, without knowing
the exact information for that tax filer – as I said earlier, there are 424,000
tax filers in the province. What I can assure that mother is that this
government is making sure that her young child doesn't bear a burden in debt in
the province that would be equal to $53,000 per person. That's what I can assure
that mother.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
budget is supposed to be about people. Closing schools, increasing the number of
multi-grade classrooms, larger classes, less teachers, fewer programs and now
cutting busing for children – I say to the minister: The NLTA has lost
confidence in you, teachers have lost confidence in you, parents and students
have lost confidence in you and recent leaks suggest your own caucus has lost
confidence in you. People are outraged.
Will you
revisit the devastating, ill-informed choices you have made?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
I'll tell you what they don't
have any confidence in, Mr. Speaker, is anything that Member says about
education in this province. Yesterday, he stood up in the House of Assembly and
said: Will you put a stop to multi-grade classrooms?
Newfoundland and Labrador has had multi-grade classrooms since the inception of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We have over 100 of them in this province today. We
had over 100 of them every year that the previous administration was in power.
We're going to have 170 of them in September, that's not including the
combined-grade initiative.
Yesterday, he asked about getting rid of them. The cost associated with what
he's asking for, that basically have classes with one student in it and one
teacher, in many instances, the price tag on that is $46 million for an
additional 500 teachers and an additional 500 classrooms. We don't even know the
cost of the infrastructure of what he's asking for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
So, Mr. Speaker, his answer
is he is going to continue to devastate the education system in this province.
Shocking!
Mr.
Speaker, we support full-day kindergarten; however, we question proceeding in
September when grades one to 12-aged children will be negatively impacted by
these budget cuts.
Will the
minister inform the people how he supports choices which negatively impact kids
currently in the education system?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the previous
administration two years ago – over two years ago now – made a commitment to
full-day kindergarten that we are going to honour.
Thirty
million dollars was put aside. Much of that work was underway by the time we
took office, some 100 renovations to classrooms across the province. I think it
was done by them because they believe we should invest in our children, but I
don't know based on what the Member just said if he still believes that. We
believe we need to catch up with the rest of Canada and make necessary
investments in the youngest generation, our smaller children. That's what we
trying to do here.
We know
none of this is really easy. These decisions are very difficult but we make them
to make better use of the finances we have, the limited tax dollars we have, in
the best interest of children.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
are significant changes coming to busing in September. I've received emails and
calls all morning. While the minister may consider these concerns nonsense – he
just talked about small children. Small children will be put out in the dark in
the winter months.
Minister, one parent wants to know: When are you going to stop messing with our
children, and how is this a stronger tomorrow that you promised?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the cost of
busing in Newfoundland and Labrador skyrocketed under the previous
administration. That was something they presided over: making changes that
resulted in skyrocketing costs. We'll spend millions more in the next school
year than we did in the current one because of skyrocketing operating costs. We
know that there's going to be difficulty in making changes for people.
We
already have double bus runs in this province and many children are already,
under the previous administration, bused over a great distance to get to school.
That's the challenge that we're trying to meet and we are, again, providing
additional millions of dollars this year for busing. So I can't see how the
Member can say that. That's not nonsense; that's a fact.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, what is
nonsense, he won't listen to the parents' concerns. No listening, that is what
the nonsense is because parents do have concerns. Parents are concerned about
the change in the bus schedule. One parent wrote that her son babysits her
younger daughter after school and the changes happening will cost her $100 more
a week.
For a
government that expects families to pay additional costs on top of all the new
taxes and ridiculous fees, why are you changing these schedules at the detriment
of hard-working families with school-aged children?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, here lies the
sort of contradiction in what the Opposition is saying. This Member says he's
concerned about additional costs that he alleges is going to be borne by
parents. The Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island who spoke about
full-day kindergarten, now wanting to cancel that, has no consideration
whatsoever on the impact of parents who planned for that over the past two
years; does not care at all. Those parents are emailing me saying thank God the
government is continuing along with that initiative.
We know
the busing changes are difficult. There is no question about that. The school
district is going to continue to work with school councils to come up with
reasonable solutions to our problems, but basically we cannot continue to pour
money into busing the way that it has been done. We need to make changes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, what I'm hearing
is absolutely ridiculous. Will you listen to the parents? Will you listen to a
parent that has to put a young child out for a bus at 7:20 in the morning in the
dark? That's terrible – small children and changes that are being made.
Mr.
Speaker, we're getting many calls about this bus schedule. I'd like to ask the
minister: Can he inform the House –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I've
asked Members for their co-operation. I'm restarting the clock for the Member
for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I'm asking on behalf of the parents in my district. That's what
they elected me to do, to ask the questions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Their questions are not
nonsense. They're good questions that they're asking because they're concerned
about their children. You mightn't be. We're getting many calls about the bus
schedule.
I'll ask
the minister: Will he inform this House which schools will be impacted and will
he table these changes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the school
district has communicated this information to parents. If the Member wants that
I can certainly give him the number or I can call the school district and ask
them to send it over to me or I can get it from my office. He can easily get
that information. He doesn't need it tabled here in the House of Assembly at
all.
I say to
the Member he stands up there and he gets on this diatribe. How many students is
he aware of today, before these changes, that have to go to school at that hour
and get picked up? Does he even know?
He has
no idea that this exists in communities across Newfoundland and Labrador today.
So why are those children that he's alleging he is concerned about – why is it
that he is not concerned about the others? I never, ever heard that Member get
up here and complain about that before.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I
recognize the Member for St. John's Centre, I ask the Member for Fortune Bay –
Cape La Hune counting down the clock is interjecting in another Member's
speaking time. I've got a stopped clock here. If you have any questions about
the timing, you can get them from the Clerk.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier and
minister keep saying their levy is temporary; cold comfort for those who have to
scrape together the money to pay for it.
I ask
the Premier: Why didn't he come up with a temporary, fair tax rather than his
temporary unfair levy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
implications on this budget has been, as we know, because of revenue that was
obviously trying to offset some of the significant damage that was done by the
prior administration when it comes to debt servicing and paying interest, of
course. So what we've seen here are a number of measures.
The levy
is, indeed, a temporary levy. It is in place, offset with a Newfoundland and
Labrador Income Supplement program of nearly $76.4 million. This will help
seniors, it will help low-income families and it will help individuals with
disabilities.
Mr.
Speaker, like most people in this province I, for one, want to see this levy
gone as quickly as possible; that's the commitment that we've made to residents
of Newfoundland and Labrador and that's the one that we will keep.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, saying the levy
is temporary does not make it any less unfair than it really is. In the Liberal
platform government promised to simplify the tax system with a complete,
comprehensive independent review. This review must also look at fairness.
I ask
the Premier: When will government start this independent, fair tax review?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The tax
review that we have committed to will be undertaken as part of the 2017 budget.
We will be looking at the taxes as a whole, including everything that people of
the province are expected to pay right now, with the objective of making sure
that we remain competitive.
It is
worth repeating, that the taxes we have in this budget this year still are quite
competitive within Atlantic Canada. Certainly that tax review is something that
we are very committed to and I look forward to the work that we're going to do
on that in the next fiscal year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I have taken up
the minister's offer for a technical briefing on the budget and how it affects
all income levels.
I ask
the minister: Will her briefing include the effects of all the extra taxes, such
as gas, home and auto insurance, taxes on books, increased personal income tax,
increased HST, the increased fees and new fees, the cancellation of the Home
Heating Rebate, the Adult Dental Program, the provincial portion of the HST
rebate, the over-the-counter drug program cancellation and other (inaudible)?
Will she help us with the real facts, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, people are
afraid and need answers, the real facts.
I'm
having a town hall this evening. I know it is short notice, but I ask the
minister if she or someone from her office could attend and work with the people
to help them figure out – with all these extra fees and taxes, can they help
them figure out how the budget will affect them?
That
would be a good thing to do, Mr. Speaker. I know it's short notice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I would
certainly be willing to support the Member as she is dealing with constituents,
but I certainly have my own constituents that I'm supporting as well and have to
spend some time continuing to talk to them.
I would
mention to the Member opposite that, as I said earlier, we have over 400,000
different tax filers and, quite frankly, to be able to provide the specific
details on every individual is going to be very difficult for her as well.
The
challenge that we have – and I want to remind the Member opposite that the
situation with this budget requires us to take action. It required us to make
some very difficult choices that nobody wanted to make. I'd ask the Member
opposite maybe she could tell us exactly what she would have liked cut.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
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 St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
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 leveled on the highest income earners only, as currently
demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other
countries; and
WHEREAS
government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax
schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction Levy be
eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation
principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador
provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, when I asked the Minister of Finance if somebody perhaps from her
office or herself could come to my town hall this evening, that is an honest and
sincere invitation. I fully realize how busy everybody is and how last minute it
is, but it is about dispelling the fears. My whole town hall is about trying to
figure out what this budget means for people. It's not about telling gruesome
stories.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
It's about getting people
together in tables. It's about getting people together to talk about what's the
reality of this budget? What are the real rollout effects and what can we do?
What would people like to do? So it's not an ambush. It's not an insincere
invitation. It actually is one I will give her officials. People are sitting at
tables talking about specific issues. They can have a separate table where
people will go up to them one by one for concrete information.
That is
what I'm offering, Mr. Speaker. I'm offering that on behalf of the good people
of St. John's Centre and whoever might come to the town hall, because people are
asking for information and people are afraid. If, as the minister says, people
need not be afraid, then let's get that information into their hands.
I am
willing to help provide an opportunity for the minister, or any officials from
her department, to be able to do that. It's a sincere and an open invitation.
It's not grandstanding. It's not anything but that. I would like to be able to
because I've been offering people, we'll do the best we can to give you the
information. We don't have all the information. We don't know all the rollout of
this particular budget. So if there's any way the department could help us, I
guarantee you –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
– I will ensure that it will
be taken with great respect.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll do
a petition again. I've lost count of how many times I've done this petition, but
I'll continue to do it.
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
policing is vital to the protection and service of our province's communities;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to increase the presence of law enforcement in
the Conception Bay South area.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
I've
presented this petition numerous times because I have a lot of them, Mr.
Speaker.
The
other day it was brought to my attention – I was going to take a little break
from them because I have presented quite often. The hon. the Minister of
Justice, I think – I'm not sure, I may be wrong. I thought part of what he said
was the petitions that's been presented, there's no change in the policing in
CBS last year to this year.
He is
100 per cent right. I wasn't the MHA last year, but I am this year. Last year,
the MHA was one of his colleagues who also lobbied for increased police
presence. Both sides of the House are in agreement with it. The former MHA was a
Liberal MHA advocating for the same thing I am. I am the MHA on record today,
not last year, and I will continue to lobby.
It is
27,000 people. I hear this every single day. The amount of crime in CBS – we
don't have a police office up there. We have two cars that float around. We're
being treated like a little municipality where you get a satellite fellow fly
through every now and then. We're the largest municipality in the province,
outside of St. John's, arguably, and all we have are two cars.
I'll
keep presenting these petitions because people actually want more of them. I
just want to continue on down the road representing the people because they want
more police presence and I'll continue on.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave
to respond to the petition if the Members (inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) Question Period.
MR. A. PARSONS:
You don't want answers. I was going to give you answers but, sorry, no leave. Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, the minister has
all the time to get up, but there's only a couple minutes left now for me to do
a petition that's important to our people.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis on a petition.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, to the hon.
House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament
assembled, the petition of –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I can't hear.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Can you ask the minister to
be quiet?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
– 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 asks low-income earners to pay more than their fair
share instead of increasing taxes to higher income;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge the government to immediately stop the introduction of this
temporary levy – as a reduction in the levy.
Mr.
Speaker, everywhere you go people are talking about this budget. No matter where
you go to anywhere. I know that the people in the province were hoping for
better. I know they were hoping for better. What they were promised – and we see
it on the ads every day, that people matter. You can't lead unless you listen.
Well,
listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know some ministers think
it is nonsense, another minister says it is what it is, but the people of
Newfoundland are talking. Every one of the people over there in those districts
knows what I'm talking about because they hear it every day too.
While
the ministers get up and say we're getting emails that are positive, read them
out here in the House of Assembly. I have them here, look. I have them right
here that's showing what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador think of your
levy. I can read them out all day long. They're from your districts.
Please,
I'm asking you on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to listen
to the people that put you in this House of Assembly. You're just not listening.
That's why you were voted here. Your bosses are the people in the districts.
Ministers, you have districts also, so listen to the people in your districts.
This is what they're telling you. They don't like the levy. They don't like the
burden you're putting on them. It's too much too fast. You're not listening to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that elected you. Please listen to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador and make changes to this ridiculous budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
We have
time for a very quick petition.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
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 introduces over 50 new fees and over 300 other fee increases; and
WHEREAS
Budget 2016 asks the people of this province to pay more for decreasing
government services; and
WHEREAS
the fee increases negatively impact the financial well-being of seniors, youth,
families, students and individuals;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to immediately reverse the fee increases as
introduced through Budget 2016.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, as I mentioned, over 300 fee increases are going to have a dramatic
impact on people's lives here. We've talked about not just the levies, we've
talked about not just the other tax increases, but the fee increases around
post-secondary education, about Adult Basic Education, about fees and services
for insurance and for other relevant things that drive our economy here. We do
implore the government here to review these fees and cut these as quickly as
possible.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
It being Private Members'
Day, I call on the Member for Mount Pearl North to present his private Member's
resolution.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
begin by reading the motion into the record here in the House:
BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the introduction of legislation for the
recall of elected Members of the House of Assembly, similar in principle to the
legislation in effect in British Columbia, where a registered voter can petition
to remove from office the member of the assembly for that voter's district
provided the voter collects signatures from more than an established percentage
of voters eligible to sign the petition in that electoral district.
Today,
Mr. Speaker, I believe we should set up an all-party committee of this
Legislature to study the implications of recall legislation and to determine the
details thereof. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do believe this is
a topic that deserves to be considered. It deserves to be explored. My desired
outcome today is to have support from all three parties to work together in a
committee to develop recall legislation that's perhaps similar in principle to
the Province of British Columbia.
Today's
debate won't be about the details of how the legislation would work; time
limits, percentage of signatures and those kinds of things. Rather, it needs to
be more like we all agree that times are changing, that voters want more
accountability from their elected Members. They want to have more involvement
than simply voting once every four years.
This
resolution recognizes this and is suggesting a path forward so that the details
of recall legislation can be explored and considered for this House. The details
are important and I believe we can all agree that the details can't be worked
out in a single afternoon here in the House of Assembly. That's why I think it's
important for a committee of the House to explore the option of recall
legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is about giving more power to voters. This is
about increasing accountability for MHAs.
Some
people may be wondering what is recall legislation. There's actually a really
good article in the Canadian Parliamentary
Review. It was in 1994 by Peter McCormick. It gives a good overview of the
arguments for recall legislation.
I should
say it's not a new idea. It was on the books in Alberta in 1936 and in Oregon in
the States in 1908. Secondly, it's not a rare idea. Most US states have had
recall at some point of their democracy. In Canada, Alberta has had it in the
past, and British Columbia has an enacted it and has recall legislation today.
Third, it does not destabilize a democracy. Many would argue that it strengthens
a democracy.
There
are two general models of recall; one is a three-stage process. The first step
is a petition has to be signed by a certain percentage of the electorate. The
second step is that there's a vote in the district on whether to recall the
member. The third step is that if the vote is yes, then the seat is vacant and a
by-election is triggered.
The
other method is the one that BC has which is only a two-stage process. The
first, a petition must be signed by a specific percentage of the electorate; and
the second, if the threshold is reached, then the seat is vacant and a
by-election is triggered without an intervening vote on whether to recall the
member. The petition itself triggers the by-election.
Now, in
the three-stage process the petition threshold is usually lower because it won't
trigger a by-election, but it will trigger a recall vote. The percentage may be
as low as 15 per cent of eligible voters in the district, but in the two-stage
process that petition threshold is higher. It may be two-thirds of eligible
voters or 40 per cent or 50 per cent; now BC uses 40 per cent.
There is
usually a timeline to collect signatures. In the US, it's 60 days; that's the
limit in BC as well. Mr. McCormick, in his paper, goes on to reject to some of
the criticisms of recall. First, he doesn't believe that a failed candidate or
party will use recall to get a second shot at the election. Second, he doesn't
believe that voters would be discarding their members every other week. In fact,
in BC, there can only be one recall petition in a district between general
elections.
Third,
he doesn't believe that premiers and Cabinet ministers would be particularly
vulnerable because they have to take unpopular decisions. He said these members
carry extra weight in the political process and that sort of balances the
scales.
Then he
gives arguments in favour of recall. He says elected members of all parties
would have to take their voters more seriously between elections, not just in
the lead up to a general election. Second, it actually empowers backbenchers and
makes them feistier. Since their caucus leader knows that they could be recalled
for not standing up for their constituents, the leader cannot treat backbenchers
and their constituents as pawns to be manipulated at will.
Mr.
McCormick says: I see recall as a device not to limit private members, not to
reduce their role, but to increase it. I think a lot of private members would
welcome the chance to have a second master to play off against the caucus master
they now clearly have and that they would benefit from that opportunity.
In the
longer run, I think the only real road to a more effective Parliament is a
feistier set of backbenchers, and I value the recall for the chance that it
might contribute to exactly that outcome.
Now, BC
has certain restrictions to keep the process from being abused. The person
petitioning for recall must be an eligible voter in the district. A person can
petition for the removal only of the person's own member. The applicant must
provide a street address, pay a processing fee and provide a reason in writing
for the recall initiative.
Everyone
who signs the petition must also provide a street address and a signature must
be witnessed. Only a registered voter in the district can canvass for
signatures. A recall initiative cannot be commenced until 18 months after a
general election and there are other restrictions as well, Mr. Speaker. There
are financing provisions. There are consequences for those who fail to comply.
There are provisions on advertising; sponsors must be registered and so on.
There are all sorts of provisions to ensure the process is not abused, and
naturally there are penalties for defined offences such as boat buying,
intimidation, wrongful canvassing or wrongful advertising and so on.
Today's
private Member's resolution is not the legislation itself. It's simply a motion
to support the development and introduction of such legislation. So perhaps our
current government would consider striking a committee to examine the
legislation that's out there, to look at alternatives, to tailor the legislation
to our own province's needs and circumstances. It could then be brought back to
this House for a debate on the actual bill, and it could even be further amended
at that point. This is merely a discussion today on the principle of recall
legislation.
Now
people have been saying on social media in the last 24 or 48 hours, why has this
not been a key plank at party platforms? Why didn't you do it when you were in
government? Well, the fact is that no political party in our province has
brought this forward before now.
Frankly,
I think the public appetite for recall is whetted only in certain circumstances.
Those circumstances arise when people are frustrated that their Member is not
representing their wishes but fighting against them instead of representing
them. All governments, Mr. Speaker, have had those moments. They usually happen
when a government has introduced an unpopular budget or unpopular legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, there are two general ideas about how a democratic jurisdiction like
ours should work. One says that you elect a representative to serve on your
behalf and you trust that Member to make the decisions that are in your best
interest and the best interest of society. That Member will have more
information than voters may have and can therefore, in theory, make a more
informed decision. That Member in theory shouldn't be held hostage to the will
of the mob, so to speak, or should be free to make difficult choices that may be
unpopular or leave a bad taste in your mouth but that are good for you.
A second
general idea is that people are more informed now than ever and they want a
greater role in telling their Member how to vote on their behalf. The second
idea has been gaining strength in Canada, especially with advances in the flow
of information through traditional media, newspapers, TV, radio, the Internet,
computers, smartphones and so on. The second idea is behind the push for more
free votes, more referendums on major initiatives, more citizen town halls and
public forums and the like.
All of
us realize that people want a stronger role in how they are governed. Some see
this as a bad thing, and that's unfortunate. Some believe that people will
usually behave like a mob and demand choices with short-term benefits that may
have terrible consequences down the road,
Ironically, perhaps the 2015 election in this province is a case in point.
Voters bought a red book that was based on fantasy from a party that denied them
the details throughout the campaign and then threw out its shiny but unrealistic
promises once elected.
Ironically, the Liberals, who sold people a fantasy in 2015 and placed a prudent
restrained budget that we delivered, are now telling people to accept what's
good for them instead of listening to what people have to say. So wouldn't a
government have to be more honest with voters, both during and between
elections, if the voters had more power to cause real consequences for that kind
of behaviour?
Is it
good enough for a government to be free of direct accountability to the people,
except every four or five years? I don't think so. Not in this day and age.
Mr.
Speaker, government Members in recent weeks have stood in this House one by one
to say how they disagree with some of the choices in this budget because they
will hurt their own constituents. Yet, they're going to vote for those choices
anyway and they have voted for those choices anyway. That also, Mr. Speaker, is
rather unfortunate.
So why
not create the circumstances that compel Members to be led by their
constituent's wishes instead of being led blindly by those on the front benches
whose choices may sometimes be flawed? What if the public is right that some of
these choices are really going to hurt people and better choices ought to be
made to make the budget stronger?
Maybe
the government ought to be more open to suggestions from the people and from
Opposition parties. Maybe introducing recall legislation is a way to make our
system more responsive to the public and more adaptable. Recall legislation will
shift the balance in favour of the people.
I say to
hon. Members in this House: Does that worry you as a Member? Does it give you an
unsettled feeling in the pit of your stomach when you think about it? Perhaps
that unsettled feeling is what it feels like to lose complacency.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Perhaps you ought to embrace
that feeling as increasing sensitivity and attentiveness to the will of the
people who elected us.
None of
us ought to believe we are so smart that we are incapable of being shown better
choices by the people who elected us. Even those among us with stellar
credentials and certificates on the wall, and letters and titles before and
after our names, ought to be more humble and open to the possibility that wiser
choices are there to be made. How arrogant it would be to believe that a Member
is wiser than the voter who elected the Member.
Over the
years, we have taken all sorts of shifts in favour of giving the voters greater
control over the way things work in this House and in government. There were
referendums on constitutional change regarding education. There have been free
votes in this very House from time to time. We now have fixed-term election
legislation that restricts a government's power to call an election when it is
most politically advantageous to the governing party.
We have
whistleblower legislation that gives public employee protection when they
disclose perceived wrongdoing. We have the strongest ATIPP legislation in the
country to give people access to the information they need to understand about
what government is doing.
The Open
Government Initiative, which is now at risk, is all about getting people
actively engaged in the process of governing. We've taken many steps towards a
different style of democracy and I'm suggesting, Madam Speaker, that this can be
the next one.
Changing
the way the House works to give private Members greater roles in assessing
legislation and proposing bills is another step towards a different style of
democracy, and all parties in this House have called for that. It's a
decentralization of government power, a limitation on government authority, a
shift toward greater power in the hands of the people. It's the end of the world
as we know it and we feel fine.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Are you going to sing?
MR. KENT:
I'm not going to sing, I say
to the hon. Member, not today.
Recall
legislation is yet another step in that direction. Although it may seem to have
come out of nowhere in this session with this resolution, in reality it is the
natural progression of things and something we believe the public would welcome.
As we
listen to the debate this afternoon, I encourage people to think about what is
the fear, what is the downside? You'll hear various arguments. The
waste-of-money argument doesn't wash. Since 40 per cent of voters really don't
want their Member to continue being their Member but want a by-election, then
surely money is not a good enough argument for denying people their right to
vote.
The
open-to-abuse argument, which you'll hear this afternoon, doesn't wash either
because there will be checks and balances to ensure that only the rightful
voters in the district can be involved in the process. It's hardly an abuse for
voters to be active in holding their Member accountable.
You'll
also hear the destabilization-of-democracy argument. That doesn't wash either,
Madam Speaker. A government whose stability is grounded on Members who do not
have their constituent's support is not really stable at all.
The
Premier talks about confidence votes. Yes, it is true that the government must
have the confidence of a majority of Members in this House in order to govern.
That's fundamental in our system. But those Members should also have the
confidence of their voters. If they are afraid that they do not have their
voters' confidence, then what business do they have propping up a government's
agenda?
Surely a
government that has lost the confidence of the people should not continue to
govern. Surely, there should be a way for people to express their lack of
confidence in a way that makes a difference. If Members of this House are afraid
to give people that power, they ought to think about why they are afraid of
that.
Some may
make the argument that it's actually Opposition Members who will be vulnerable,
that voters would mobilize to throw out an Opposition Member in favour of a
Member on the government side. That, too, could happen, but Oppositions have a
role to fill. Sometimes when a government is extremely popular, an Opposition
Member's role may be very unpopular. We have to give the public credit for being
wiser than that.
Madam
Speaker, I have more to say. My time is running out. I look forward to the
debate and I look forward to speaking again later this afternoon.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The hon. the
Member for Stephenville – Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
First,
I'd like to thank the Member for Mount Pearl North for putting the motion
forward and acknowledge them in Opposition and the important role that they play
and bringing the unique ideas to the forefront for discussion.
I just
want to refer back to the motion for a moment for those who may have missed it.
I'm just going to cut a piece here. Essentially the idea is: where a registered
voter can petition to remove from office the Member of the Assembly for that
voter's district provided the voter collects enough signatures from an
established percentage of voter's eligible to sign the petition in that
electoral district.
So it is
a little vague and again understanding that it is essentially just a private
Member's motion, the idea presented by the Member for Mount Pearl North would be
to have some type of all-party committee to further review that motion to come
up with some ideas. But in the vague nature that it's in, it sounds very
grassroots; I'll give you that. It sounds very democratic in theory, but I do
believe it is very impractical.
I think
a recall is purely political in nature. I don't see any other way around it. It
actually lends itself to instability, dysfunction. It really deters unpopular
decisions, even if they're the right ones. Hence the timing of this motion, I
would gather, given our budget, which is unpopular – and that's known to us and
that's certainly known to you and certainly known to the electorate. But just
given an unpopular decision doesn't mean that it is not necessarily the right
one.
If we
had to recall a government every time we took an action that citizens opposed –
MR. K. PARSONS:
(Inaudible).
MR. FINN:
Well, we're not going to
recall the government – fair enough for the Member for Cape St. Francis for
bringing that up, recall a member. Sure, and you could recall every member
perhaps if you wanted to, if you had the legislation to do it.
But
again, every time a specific interest group or lobby group had a bone to pick
with us, whether it's a union or any form of matter, the opportunities are
endless for every time we make a decision. I don't know how we'd be able to
long-term plan. How do you long-term plan if you can't make any decisions that
wouldn't be very popular? It is just in excess of democracy, adding bureaucracy
to what's already bureaucratic process as it is.
The
Member referenced BC and BC is the only province in Canada that currently has
this legislation. I believe in the United States there is close to 29 or 30
different states that support this legislation, and they do it in various forms.
Whether that's at the state level or the municipal level, you can recall mayors,
judges, lawyers. There are a number of things you can do in the US.
But in
Canada, in BC in particular, their legislation essentially only has a
200-word-or-less statement in which their opinion why a member should be voted
out or recalled. It's very subjective. Essentially any action that no one likes
by a member – maybe a voter in my district doesn't like my family so they want
to recall me, I'm not sure. Maybe someone in my family does something that's not
very popular and then someone wants to recall me. Well, that's not an accurate
reflection of me and the representation that I provide my constituents.
Therefore, I don't believe it would be a justifiable reason why I should be
recalled. However, without any specific information there this is very
subjective in nature.
BC,
again to reference that example, former Premier Gordon Campbell was going to
increase the HST in the province of British Columbia. Then, in doing so, there
were threats and looming of a recall. So he essentially, in order to avoid the
recall, held a referendum on HST and the electorate obviously voted the HST
increase down. Now that government did not make that tough decision and they
will not benefit from any extra revenue as a result of that.
Some
other areas where, again, very vague, there was a mayor in Colorado – this one
is very interesting. He was recalled in a small town in Colorado over a plan to
switch parking from diagonal parking places to parallel parking places. If you
can recall someone over something as simple as that, I don't know how you
essentially – no matter what all-party committee you put together – could find a
happy balance in between to determine what is particular for a recall.
A recall
also does not change the resources which we have as a government to work with.
In fact, it does nothing but tie up resources. We'd have to hire people to the
Elections NL office for how long, to review what? You submit an application,
you're stating here's my recall, now we have to go through and review how many
signatures. A number tossed about was 40 per cent, so 40 per cent of your
electorate would have to sign this petition. How much time would it take to
verify that and for what benefit, for what gain?
I think
we have people in Elections NL that could find a lot better use of their time
than going through different recall legislations every time someone has one
issue with a member of their district. Once initiated, this process will be
cumbersome no matter which way you look at it.
What
about a decision by the federal government? What if that wasn't popular? What if
the Liberals in Ottawa right now did something very unpopular that poorly
reflected my district or my colleague's district? Would that be justifiable
reason enough for someone to recall me as a Member of the House of Assembly?
How
about, for example, industry? Let's say the Abitibi mill closure is a great
example. The member of the day in the District of Stephenville – Port au Port,
formerly St. Georges – Stephenville East, was unable to help resolve the Abitibi
situation and that industry leaves town, leading to a number of job losses. So
because you weren't able to save an industry from surviving is that justifiable
enough for a recall, even though we have no influence over how industry reacts
and the ebbs and flows and commodity prices and everything else that comes along
with it?
This
type of legislation would essentially delay important decision making, I would
suggest not dissimilar to that of the important decision making the PCs didn't
make for the last 12 years. It kind of influences their idea of kicking the can
down the road again, really, and you can only hold on to your seat when one is
popular. I mean, even if you had to wait 18 months – because that was another
number thrown about – into your term before you could be recalled, well, I'd
wager to say that 18 months is not enough time to give anyone an opportunity to
run on a mandate. We've only been in power for five months right now, and we
have another three years and seven months to go.
In that
three years and seven months that is going to follow from now, we're looking
forward to delivering on our mandate. Recall legislation would essentially deter
that from even happening. Myself as a young politician – I'm new, I'm young and
I admit I have a lot to learn. I'm learning lots every day, and I'm really keen
on learning. I'm also keen on delivering to the constituents of my district, and
I would not be able to do so if recall legislation was introduced and I, as a
Member, was recalled simply because we made some unpopular decisions in a budget
process.
Making
decisions with keeping people in mind and keeping the electorate and giving the
power back to the people – and those are points the Member for Mount Pearl North
made. We make decisions every day, and we do it within consultation, unlike some
of the decisions that were made by the Members opposite when they were in power
and did make decisions without consulting with the public.
I'll
give you a prime example. In my district, the West Coast Training Centre was due
for closure – in fact, the Liberal government in the early 2000s were looking at
closing the West Coast Training Centre, and in doing so what they did is the
Liberal government came out and they consulted with the town council and they
said help us come up with a plan to keep this institution open before we look at
closing it.
So the
town council of the day came up with a plan and they worked with the Liberal
government – now, ultimately that government did not look at introducing that
plan – and then a number of years later the PC government just two or three
years ago came out and said, well, we're going to close it on 48 hours' notice,
with no consultation at all.
What
then ensued was a lot of kickback from the public and a consultation process
occurred, at which time we came up with a plan and now have one of the best
facilities on the Island in the West Coast Training Centre that stands in my
town today.
So
consulting with the public is something we're doing often, and it's something we
continue to do. Stating that it would give the backbenchers a more feisty
position and greater opportunity to represent their constituents and speak out
on their concerns – we speak out on their concerns every day. The Members
opposite know this and they've read the media to understand it as well. We
always challenge our Cabinet ministers on the decisions they make, and so we
should, and we continue to do that.
When we
look at checks and balances that we have in place to keep us intact – I can
understand recall in situations if someone committed some crimes, or a felony,
but that's what our Member's Code of Conduct in the House of Assembly is for.
That's exactly what that's for.
Also,
when we look at long-term planning; I don't know what kind of lending
institution's appetite would be if they had no idea going forward in terms of
what government's going to be in power. What about industry, business,
investors? How can they look at making an investment – maybe a business wants to
come in and say, look, I want to start a business here in this area. The
government in power is in full support of this but the Opposition ran completely
contrary to that, so I'm not going to go ahead with my investment in this area.
Also,
the subjectivity of such of these reasons as I listed from something as foolish
as parallel parking, which happened in Colorado, to something as foolish as
somebody doesn't like someone in my family for that matter. This type of
subjective language – I'll give you an idea. In Tennessee, there was a mayor in
Tennessee and he had six recalls put up against him in a short period of time.
He ended up filing lawsuits which he won, because the subjectivity of such of
the language. You can on and on for hours in a day, what justifies a recall?
Again, I
think our folks in the Electoral Office would benefit from using their time more
wisely. I also believe that if we were to look at an all-party committee, we
could have all-party committees doing much better things than sitting around
talking about recall legislation.
The
Opposition in this would be essentially the beneficiary. If there even were
rules for spending, how do you control rules for spending in recall, I would ask
the Member for Mount Pearl North? I don't understand how you would introduce
spending, because they could have lobby efforts everywhere in every district and
have people funding campaigns to recall someone.
What
about voter apathy? People are tired of going to the polls. We just had a
federal election. We just had a provincial election. We're going to have
municipal elections coming up again. We constantly have elections. So, voter
apathy, I think, would be a huge consideration when you look at people who are
tired of going to the polls.
What
about the cost of a by-election? Even if the Member, as he had suggested, said
well, maybe if you looked at a recall and in some instances there's no
by-election. Well, if you have no by-election your constituents are left in the
lurch, for one; and for two, if you did have a by-election there's a significant
cost that would be incurred. People don't want to go to the polls over and over.
When we
look at the opportunities the former administration had, this was an opportunity
they had to introduce this legislation at that time. I think if they did, there
would have been a number of things questioned. There are some real better ways
to spend money instead of tying up resources and looking at legislation of this
nature.
I'm
willing to bet, as well, there's some irony in the fact that we're looking at
recalling Members who are elected, when the former administration actually
appointed individuals to elected positions for which they were not elected and
then further would not run in by-elections.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Who?
MR. FINN:
I believe there was an
appointment to a Cabinet position for someone who wasn't even elected, but now
the idea is we're going to recall individuals who have been elected.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. FINN:
In terms of recall, there are
a number of things we could recall.
I recall
the former administration decreasing taxes to our highest income earners and
decreasing the HST. It would be really nice to recall that right about now. We'd
have about $4 billion just in the tax decreases alone that we'd have in our
coffers.
How
would we recall Muskrat Falls? How would we look at recalling the Muskrat Falls
fiasco and the billion-and-a-half dollars you put behind the budget with no
oversight and no plan?
I don't
think there's any individual here that would like to put the time and energy
into looking at recall legislation. It has a time. It has a place.
BC went
ahead and did this. In 1996, I believe, they introduced the legislation.
Twenty-six different individuals have been recalled. All have failed miserably.
In one instance, someone ended up resigning. So there was never a point in time
where it has even proven effective in the Province of British Columbia.
If we
are to go down this road and follow the pattern of the US, what are we going to
do then? Are we next going to have municipal councils recalled as well? Are we
then going to follow suit there? We're going to tie up Municipalities
Newfoundland and Labrador and every municipality for a recall. Maybe a town
councillor makes a tough decision or makes a remark. Maybe there's a decrease in
a budget or an increase in another budget. I mean, the list goes on and on.
Unpopular decisions are made by governments every single day. It does not make
them popular by doing so, but sometimes you have to make decisions for the right
reasons when you're looking at future interests. Just because every time you
make an unpopular decision you have an opportunity to be recalled, I don't think
that's a very good consideration.
The
Member for Mount Pearl North also just said we ran on a platform this fall and
we sold the electorate a fantasy. I struggle with that statement because we ran
on a platform of which we had an understanding of the financial situation which,
actually, that was the fantasy, was the financial situation. It was a fantasy
world they lived in when they overspent at times of high oil revenues and at
times of surpluses. I have great difficulty to sit here and listen to that
rhetoric from the Member opposite.
The
shift of balance would only put this in the favour of the Opposition. It would
certainly only put this in the political interest for them. It would do nothing
to benefit the electorate. We'd have a high increase in voter apathy, and the
list goes on and on.
In
closing, I just want to say I applaud the Member opposite for the unique motion
here, but, unfortunately, this is something I don't think I can support at all
and I don't believe any Members on my side will be supporting today.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member his time has expired.
MR. FINN:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
Indeed,
it's a pleasure to get up here again today to represent the beautiful District
of Cape St. Francis. I applaud the Member for Stephenville for getting up and
giving his points here in the House of Assembly, a good job that you did, hon.
Member.
That's
what this is all about. That's what this legislation is about. If you want to
make changes in the House of Assembly, we all have to work together. There's
nothing wrote down on this particular amendment. We're looking at things we can
do better, how we can represent our constituents, how we can represent people in
the province better.
As I say
every time I get up, the people that elected us are our constituents. They're
the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I understand exactly what you're
saying, but if someone is against your family, they didn't vote for you in the
first place, all right?
It's not
all about you; it's about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's about
the constituents. It's about people that had promises made to them that were
broken. That's what it's about. This is legislation that can come in place that
will make this place better. If you look at the legislation that we're proposing
–
AN HON. MEMBER:
It's in the policy
(inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's in the policy book. You
spoke out against your government. Good for you. I really think that a Member –
a good job that you spoke out.
Do you
know what your problem was? Madam Speaker, the problem was that he didn't hear
about the libraries closing until the libraries board told him, so he wasn't
engaged. I was in the backbench too; I know where you're coming from. We all
should be engaged. By having recall legislation, it means that the people on
this front row will have to engage you.
You
never knew about the libraries getting closed, never had a clue until they told
you because they didn't let you know. That's what this legislation is about.
It's about making sure that we're all engaged. They have to answer not only to
the constituents, but they should answer to the backbenchers. It's
accountability.
I was
there. Let me tell you something right now, your government is not the only one
that did that. I sat on that backbench over there for seven years and there were
a lot of times I wasn't engaged. I was as mad as you guys are now. I was mad
because there was – as somebody said, I would have liked to have known the
decisions. I thought that as an elected representative I should know, but that's
politics. Cabinet has a secrecy and they do what they have to do, but that's
politics.
If there
was recall legislation you'd be telling them, saying: listen here, my job is on
the line, I need to know, my constituents need to know. That's what this is
about. This is not about me. It's not about the Member for Stephenville that
just got up and spoke that could have someone against his family. This is about
representing the people.
We made
promises – we all go around election time and we make promises. We stand, we
knock on a door and we tell the person we're going to represent them. I'm sure
every one of the backbenchers over there, ye did the same thing as I did. I told
them I'm going to work hard. I didn't make a promise whether I was going to
build a school or build a – and neither did you, I know you didn't. But the
ministers along the front row and the Premier, and our party, the Third Party,
we all had platforms and these platforms were what people elected ye on.
Now that
we got in here and all of a sudden things change – and there are things that
change. If you look at the price of oil, yes, it went down; our deficit went up.
Things change, but we all made promises. I made promises to work hard, you made
promises to work hard, but you need to be engaged. This is what this legislation
is all about, giving the voters the opportunity to be able to say listen here,
that's not why I elected you. I know the minister –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, I know, the Member for
Harbour Grace, I understand –
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the Member to direct his comments to the Chair.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, I understand what the
Member for Harbour Grace is saying. I'd be upset too if my library was getting
closed, if a school I promised people was going to be built is not going to be
built, if the courthouse is not going to be done. You should have been engaged
beforehand, and this is what this legislation will do, it will force everyone to
know what's on the table.
It's
important. Listen, I don't know how this is going to work, I really don't know
how this is going to work, but I think if we had an all-party committee together
and sat down and said okay, what's the best thing for the voters of Newfoundland
and Labrador, I'm sure we could come up – I don't know if the BC thing is the
right way to go; I really don't know. I tell you one thing; I've got emails and
lots of them from all over this province, from every district in this province.
Do you know what they're asking me? What can we do? I said send emails to the
minister, send emails to your – you may think that's funny, Minister of
Education. It's not funny because these people are concerned. You may think it's
funny. It's sad that you think it's funny. It's nonsense, I know.
MR. KIRBY:
I'm reading my (inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
Oh my, I tell you, I get
upset, Madam Speaker. I'm sorry, Madam Speaker –
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I do get upset when I see
that.
People
are worried about this. They're sending emails. You're talking to families –
everybody over there is talking to families too, but this is a part of
legislation that will make us more accountable, and make us more accountable to
the people that elected us. The Member across the way talked about oh, it could
be a union against you, it could be somebody against you, but that's not the
point. Listen, we're lucky in an election today in Newfoundland that we get 50
per cent of the people out to vote.
Now, I'm
a very lucky person because my district had the highest turnout in the province:
71 per cent. People are engaged in my district, and I've very proud of that
because 71 per cent got out to vote in the district. I worked hard, and I know
people that ran against me worked hard to get their vote out too, and we did a
good job. People were engaged. I'd like to see more Newfoundland and Labrador
voters engaged in the whole process. I think this will probably even make them
more engaged because they'll feel part of it. They'll feel part of the process.
They'll feel part of saying listen if you don't do what you told us you're going
to do, then we have a recourse. It would make us more accountable.
Madam
Speaker, I'm not saying it's the liberals, okay. It could be the PCs; it could
be the NDP. I'm sure that if you look back at history, you'll all see this. When
an election comes, you have no worries the first couple of budgets that are
coming down are going to be the hard ones.
Do you
know what every one of the ministers over there, I am sure, are telling the new
people that are here? I am absolutely positive that they're doing it. They're
saying now listen, it's going to be tough for a couple of years but the last
couple of years before the election comes, you'll see a bit of change. We'll
build that school in Coley's Point; don't you worry about it. We'll make sure
that everything is done in the districts that need to be done.
That's
the way it works. This recall legislation will stop that; you'll have to be
accountable right from day one. You'll work harder. We'll work harder as MHAs.
If the
people in Cape St. Francis say they don't want Kevin Parsons, b'y, listen, if
you have 40 per cent, I'll step down. I will step down and say if you didn't
want me, that's okay; I understand. If someone else can better do the job, so be
it, and I'm sure all you Members are the same.
People
vote for people because you're good people. You're good people over there; I
have no doubt in my mind you're good people. The election called last October,
they didn't vote for you because you're a bad person or anything at all or
because (inaudible). I believe that honestly you won. The people in your
districts thought you were the best person to represent them, just like the
people in Cape St. Francis thought I was.
All this
legislation is doing is making us accountable. It's making us accountable to the
people that elected us. What's wrong with setting up an all-party committee to
decide whether we can have – and they decide what the rules are.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Bill 29 (inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
Bill 29 – yes, Bill 29 is a
bad thing, isn't it? Why are we going back? This is about going ahead.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
You're losing –
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Do you know what? The hon.
Member across the way, if there was a recall in her district she'd be worried. I
know she would because of what happened here and I feel sorry for her. I really
do. I wouldn't want to be in her position. I really would not want to be in her
position.
I
understand where the Member for Bonavista is coming from. I'd be concerned in
his district too. I don't want to see any personal attacks against anyone. I
don't want that. I don't like that. I don't think it should ever be because like
I just said a few minutes ago –
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the Member to direct his comments to the Chair.
Thank
you.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I think you're good people
over there. I think the decisions that you're making are bad decisions, but I
think overall you're good people.
People
are more engaged today. I got two kids that I have to give them the Blackberry
or the computer. If I need to buy something, I usually ask the young fellow to
go get whatever it is because they're so engaged. Our young people are engaged
and you all have to admit it. I never saw it before that we see so many young
people engaged in politics. It's because of technology; it's because of what
they see on Facebook and Twitter and everything else. So people are engaged.
The
funny thing too, Madam Speaker, I look at some of my friends on Facebook and
they're elderly people. I never, ever thought that – computers back 20 years ago
were like, wow, they were scary type things and when you look at the people who
are engaged today. People are more engaged.
The
House of Assembly 20 years ago wasn't televised. There are people watching this
all day long. Things have to change so why not change. This is all part of it.
We have to change.
Some
people were against it last year when we changed the number of Members in here
and there were a lot cried that it was a big change and all this stuff.
Actually, my district was one of the largest in the province and it got reduced
and I kind of like it, to tell you the truth. But it was good changes. There's
nothing wrong with changing policy.
Again, I
have to go back to the Member who just spoke before. You talk about
consultations. People got out and I applaud them – I went to them; I went the
consultations that you had. But do you know what the problem was to the
consultations that you had? You didn't listen to the people that made them. The
1,000 people that stood up, you didn't listen to them. That's the problem, you
didn't listen, and that's why people are mad today.
Madam
Speaker, people are mad in this province and there's a reason why they're mad.
There were promises made and they are not kept. They went out and they said
okay, we're going to consult. The one I went to I never heard one person mention
a levy. We all spoke. I was at a table that had a really good – the Minister of
Transportation is there now. Do you know what the biggest suggestion – I never
thought about it either but I'm after getting a couple of emails, Minister, is
that the people said turn off the lights here in the nighttime. Why are you
paying the light bill? I'm sure you're all after hearing that. We're all after
hearing that. That is true. Those were the things people were talking about.
People
weren't talking about 15 per cent on their home insurance and their property
insurance. People didn't talk about a person who is making – I came up last week
with a lady that was making $36,000. People never talked about taxing that
person so she'd have to come up with $3,000 or $4,000 more a year to live.
That's not what you talked about.
While
you can get up and say you're learning as you're going, so am I. I've been here
for eight years and I learn every day when I get in here. There's something new
that strikes me every day that I come to the House of Assembly, and I try to
react to it. I do it at the utmost respect to every individual that calls me or
emails me or whatever it is. I try my best.
I hope
that when I'm finished someday someone will say he was a good MHA. Just like I
said about the former MHA that was here, Jack Byrne, that represented our
district for 16 years. He was a good MHA. I hope that's what every one of ye
wants.
If the
people in your district, 50 per cent – now only 50 per cent are going to get out
to vote. We'll just say 50 per cent; BC has 40 per cent. If 50 per cent of the
people in your district think that you should be fired, guess what? They're your
bosses; you should be fired.
Give the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador credit. They're not stupid. Everything they
say is not nonsense. Statements like that, what are you saying to the people of
Newfoundland? The more we can engage our people, the better off this place will
be. The better off Newfoundland and Labrador will be.
We need
to engage people. This is not something that – a Member said, oh, it was only a
short little thing, 200 words. We can make up our own rules. We don't need to be
guided by anyone else. We can set up an all-party committee – and by the way, an
all-party committee usually has a majority from the government side. That's the
way an all-party committee works most times, I do believe. So what's wrong with
that? Why wouldn't you vote for a committee that can make this place more
accountable to the people that elected us? I don't understand that. I don't
understand why you don't want the constituents of Stephenville to be able to
have a say.
It's not
a family that's against another family. That's not going to get it. That's not
part – it's not a union against this. This is about 40 or 50 per cent of the
people that are in your district. I think the last election 52 per cent of the
people got out and voted. It's not like you're just going to pick 20 coming down
the road and say b'y we're going to get rid of you now. That's not the way it's
going to work.
Let's
sit on a committee together so we can make this place work better for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it will work better for the backbenchers.
I was a backbencher for seven years and I wanted more say in my government. I
did. We were the PC government at the time. I wanted more say, just like every
one of you over there wants now.
Don't
tell me you don't because when I hear a Member saying that he didn't know his
library was closing until they called him or another Member down in Gambo area
said he didn't know when his library was going to close – you should have
known. You're an elected representative. They should have had the respect to
notify their Members this is what's happening in their district. That's all this
is about.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member his time is expired.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West – Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I
welcome the opportunity to stand today to respond to the private Member's motion
put before us by the Official Opposition. I thank all the Members who so far
have spoken, and I thank the Member for Cape St. Francis, and I echo his
comments that I think we all hope here in this House to walk away from politics
someday and have the people who elected us look back and say he or she was a
good Member. He or she served us well and represented our interests. From
everything that I've heard from people who live in his district, I think the
people have well received the Member for Cape St. Francis, and I congratulate
him on being re-elected because it's a true testament to what he's offered his
district. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he had to say, Madam
Speaker.
I'm
certainly glad to hear Members opposite are interested in furthering
accountability and I'm glad to hear Members opposite are interested in seeing
the voices of our citizens are heard, and I am glad to hear the Members opposite
that they've had an epiphany and now hold every virtue and every answer they
didn't have for the last 12 years, Madam Speaker.
I'm not
one bit surprised that the Members opposite are bringing this forward, because
they've had experience with recall. Let's not kid ourselves, this province does
have a recall provision, and it's called a general election. The crowd opposite
were recalled by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for over a decade of
waste and gross mismanagement of the public purse.
Everywhere we went, Madam Speaker, during the election, all we could hear is:
Where did the money go? What happened to the money, the $25 billion? Out the
window, out the door, where did it go?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Humber Valley.
MR. BROWNE:
Humber Valley Paving's a
great example of that, Madam Speaker, but we'll get to that, don't worry.
Let me
also point out, Madam Speaker – and I think this can help inform the debate here
today – that we have fixed election dates in this province where MHAs are held
accountable every four years. This is a concept the Official Opposition might
not like, because they tried their very best to outmaneuver and circumvent and
sidestep the scheduled election dates last year as long as they could. They
would have tried to push it into this year, no doubt, but unfortunately they
couldn't find a Machiavellian way to do it. So here we had the election last
year and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador spoke and elected a new
government.
With
that said, do I believe accountability is important? Absolutely. Do I also
believe this province and our country deserves political stability? Absolutely.
How many people have we sat across the table from, how many business people and
potential investors have said to us: We want to invest in this province. They
value the political stability that a parliamentary democracy brings. That's why
they're choosing and considering to invest right here in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Recall,
Madam Speaker, is not a legal item. It's not a legal term. Removal of MHAs for
wrongdoings is already possible. Recall in this instance, what the Official
Opposition is presenting here today, is purely political and it's a matter of
gamesmanship. What would be the basis for recalling an MHA and who would decide
what that basis is? Would recall be allowed because they voted for an unpopular
bill, as an example?
I just
had a message, Madam Speaker, from a constituent: I didn't elect anyone to be
wasting time on this nonsense. That was the message I received today. When
people look to me and say we can form an all-party committee on this, I should
suggest that there are a lot more important and pressing matters facing the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly the people in my district
that we could form an all-party committee on, more so than the political
hand-wringing for the Opposition. That's what this is. It's a pure political
maneuver. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are tired of the theatrics
that the Members opposite are continuing to put forward.
We've
heard the Members opposite bring forward the example of British Columbia. We've
seen them today herald this example, so let's talk about BC, Madam Speaker. It
has not been particularly effective in the one jurisdiction in Canada that has
this system. British Columbia has had 20 recall efforts so far: 19 were
rejected, dismissed outright by the government because they could not verify the
signatures; and the other one was cancelled when the Member resigned over the
recall effort. Since bringing forward that legislation in 1996 in British
Columbia it is has not succeeded once. It has succeeded, on the other hand, in
tying up resources but has never succeeded in its ultimate goal.
BC is
the only Canadian jurisdiction to do this, which doesn't surprise me that the
Members opposite would be going down a path where nine out of 10 Canadian
provinces would not have gone. We all remember Bill 29, Madam Speaker, another
piece of legislation that was unique to one province which was Newfoundland and
Labrador. Then we had to spend a million dollars to conduct a review by Chief
Justice Wells to get out of the same legislation that the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador were crying out against and didn't want in the first place. So we
had to spend a million dollars to get out of that and I don't think anyone wants
to go back to that place.
Madam
Speaker, the Member opposite also talked about accountability and open
government. I think there were some comments made in the media. Well, just let
me remind the Member opposite that he and his colleagues rose in this House and
defended Bill 29 to the hilt, and then shoved it through against the public
will. It was the same Member now today who was responsible for open government
this time last year and had the opportunity to bring forward these
considerations and changes, but didn't do so.
Today,
we have a debate in the House of Assembly where we could be debating any number
of measures. I think next week Members will see a private Member's resolution
brought forward that is productive and goes towards the betterment of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, we have one that's pure politics and games,
Madam Speaker – pure politics and games.
I would
argue when we talk about accountability, Madam Speaker, that the PC government
was held accountable for all the moves they made in the last 12 years and that
was in the last election. The point here ultimately is that I'm not afraid to
face the voters. I welcome the opportunity to do that in four years' time. I
think each and every one of us will stand on our records and ask the people for
their support if we so chose to seek re-election.
The
Members opposite talk about the budget and the tough choices that had to be
made. Since the budget, Madam Speaker, I've travelled to a number of communities
in my district including Southern Harbour, Arnold's Cove, Parker's Cove,
Marystown, Bellevue, Long Harbour, Chapel Arm, Norman's Cove, Long Cove and St.
Lawrence. I almost run out of breath here trying to tell people where I've been.
The
point of this, Madam Speaker, is that I'm not afraid to face the voters. The
weekend after the budget I was out on the wharf with fishermen in Southern
Harbour debating the budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
I'm not afraid to go out
there and talk to the people, hear what they have to say, and bring those
concerns back to Members of my caucus and my colleagues here in the government.
That is the role we've been elected to do. To hear the Members opposite stand,
who sat silent for the last 12 years, it's fairly rich, Madam Speaker. It is
fairly rich.
Why
don't we just go over a few things that happened in the last number of years? I
want to start with Muskrat Falls, the largest project in our history, Madam
Speaker. It saddled us down with costs and debt. In fact, we had to send $1.3
billion over to Nalcor this year. It's ballooned. Every time and time again they
come back with an updated cost. There was very little oversight when it was put
forward.
They
said no to the PUB. They said no to independent panels. I recall distinctly at
the time, Madam Speaker, that the former premier of the day, Ms. Dunderdale,
said that they'd have a private Members' debate in the House of Assembly and
that would be all. There wouldn't be a vote. There wouldn't be anything other
than that. Should we have had recall legislation on that?
What
about the CETA deal, Madam Speaker? The same former premier marched off down to
The Rooms to make the big
announcement, and even had the now Leader of the NDP accompanying her that day.
A $400 million fund for the fishery. What was the problem? They didn't even
invite that feds. Actually, it wasn't that they didn't invite the feds; they
didn't even tell them it was going on. Maybe we should have recalled that
government of that day for misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
How
about ferries? You want to talk about ferries being built in Romania for Change
Islands, Fogo and Bell Island. Should we recall the ferry? It's down there tied
up in St. John's harbour, Madam Speaker. They didn't do their homework.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
The work was taken out of the
province. No opportunity to do it in the province.
I have a
shipyard in Marystown that could have aptly done the work. We have a skilled
workforce and a fine facility. The opportunity wasn't even presented to them.
You sent it over to Romania. You didn't even do your homework. We would have
been slapped with a bill for $25 million. It's ridiculous, Madam Speaker.
The fact
of the matter is had we not elected a federal Liberal government, this province
would be on the hook for another $25 million when the work could have been done
right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
I say to the Members
opposite, Madam Speaker, maybe their government should have been recalled on
that. Really, in essence, they were recalled because the people in my area
certainly rejected what they did and many areas of the province. They forced
them out of office and elected a new government.
How
about Humber Valley Paving? You were up in the Department of Transportation,
weren't you? Let's talk about Humber Valley Paving. The company had contracts in
Labrador. The owner of the company, a private businessman, was going to step
forward for the PC leadership. He was the chosen one by their former leader.
Within a span of hours, the contract was, poof, gone, Madame Speaker – $19
million.
I'm sure
we'll get back to this at a later point, Madam Speaker. Should the government
and the Member's opposite of the day have been recalled on that? I would argue
they were recalled in the last general election.
AN HON. MEMBER:
The minister stepped down
over that one.
MR. BROWNE:
The minister stepped down.
There should have been more who stepped down, but we'll get back to that at a
later date.
Madam
Speaker, what about Judy Manning? You wanted me to get back to recall. Here's a
substantive question on recall: How would recall legislation, that the Members
opposite are proposing, apply to an unelected Cabinet minister that refused and
refused and refused to run in a by-election to seek a seat in the House of
Assembly? How would that have worked? How would an unelected minister – which
they broke constitutional convention and set a record in the country as to what
to do. How would that fit in?
They
went and erased the Department of Justice for a couple of days and then put it
back. How would that fit into their plan, Madam Speaker? Once again we've got a
resolution put forward that is ill thought out and ill planned which is a
hallmark of the government that they led for 12 years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
Madam Speaker, I want to
respond to some of the comments that were made by Members opposite before I
finish up. The Member for Cape St. Francis made some comments about backbenchers
being more engaged. I think that he brings up a very good point, that all
Members of this House should be engaged in whatever matters are being put forth,
and that includes Members from all three parties. I believe the more we work
together, the more we collaborate and the more we bring our thoughts and ideas
together, it will be to the benefit of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
He talks
about having backbenchers over here muzzled and not being able to talk. Well,
let me remind the Members opposite that for the first time in the history of the
province we had a parliamentary secretary answer a question in Question Period,
allowing parliamentary secretaries to take on an expanded role. The Member for
Cape St. Francis was a parliamentary secretary. The Member for Fortune Bay –
Cape La Hune also was. This is something that we are doing now.
Also, in
the first time in our history a government backbencher presented a petition on
behalf of their district. There were no knuckled rapped; there were no
punishments put out. This is about opening up government to a place where
everyone in this House, all Members, can rise on their feet and speak for their
constituents and represent their constituents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
We talk about being more
engaged, how many times has the Minister of Finance stood in this House offering
a technical briefing to the Members opposite and they haven't taken her up on
the offer? Why aren't they choosing to be engaged and be part of the solution
rather than the white noise of critique all of the time? Come forward to the
table I say, Madam Speaker.
I also
want to respond to the comments that the Member for Cape St. Francis made about
the fact that not all the things in the budget were a result of the Government
Renewal Initiative. I'd like him to come forward and say exactly what it was
that was not in the GRI. I attended a number of sessions, Madam Speaker, where I
heard the people of Newfoundland and Labrador say to us make the tough choices,
don't kick the can down the road. We've accumulated enough debt as a result of
the decisions taken by the past government.
Madam
Speaker, in closing, I think the message from my constituents says it all. I
think we elected people to talk about more important things in this House than a
political maneuver on behalf of the Official Opposition to try and gain some
brownie points.
Yes,
there are tough decisions, Madam Speaker; but I believe working together as
Members of this House, in four years, we will stand again to the people of our
province and we will ask them to judge us, and that is something we are very
willing to do.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand in the House and to speak to this private Member's motion.
BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the introduction of legislation for the
recall of elected Members of the House of Assembly, similar in principle to the
legislation in effect in British Columbia, where a registered voter can petition
to remove from office the Member of the Assembly for that voter's district
provided the voter collects signatures from more than an established percentage
of voters eligible to sign the petition in that electoral district.
I see
now that the Speaker's Chair has been resumed by another Speaker. Mr. Speaker,
I'm very happy to speak to this private Member's motion. The current uproar over
the provincial budget is understandable. Low- and middle-income earners, many of
whom are women, seniors on fixed incomes, people from rural areas, people who
rely on public libraries, parents of school-age children, the people of
Labrador, students, people with a sense of social justice, those who understand
the need to foster literacy and love of books – there are many Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians who have a very good reason to be extremely upset by this
budget today.
What is
particularly galling to many people I have spoken to and heard from is the fact
that so many measures in the budget fly in the face of promise after promise in
the Liberal platform in last fall's election. I share this feeling of anger over
the breaking of promises made as late as two or three days before the general
election. The Liberals continued to make those promises two or three days even
before the general election. People feel they were betrayed. People feel
bamboozled.
They are
not willing to simply accept their vote was taken from them under false
pretenses, because that's what it was, Mr. Speaker. There were very clear,
unambiguous promises, and people are mad because they believed the Liberals
clear and unequivocal election promises and are now paying dearly for believing
those promises. And they believed them. Why wouldn't they? They were promises
made by people and we would expect that those promises would be kept.
If a
general election every four years is the cornerstone of our democracy, then
people have a right to expect candidates will say what they mean and mean what
they say. While the exact details of the province's economic situation were not
fully clarified till after the election, however, this serious downward trend
was clear even before the writ was dropped. Yet the Liberals double downed on
their promises, even in the face of what was very clear to everyone in the
province. They double downed on their promises. They said no HST increases, no
public sector layoffs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They double downed right
up until the bitter end of the election campaign. They made a social contract
with the people of the province. They made a promise.
Now, in
this context of votes cast in good faith, in response to clear, unambiguous
campaign promises, votes that many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel were
stolen from them – in this context, a discussion of our democratic system is
timely. Recall has been suggested in the private Member's motion as a means of
addressing the anger caused by such a cynical approach.
I
submit, Mr. Speaker, that recall is one of many potential tools that needs to be
carefully examined. To date, recall hasn't proved a very successful tool in
Canada. In British Columbia, the only Canadian province with recall provisions,
there have been 26 attempts at recall since 1995. One member in question
resigned, but the others fell through for various reasons. So it hasn't been
very successful.
That
doesn't mean that recall isn't worthy of consideration here today. It is and
while we are at it, our debate here today should go beyond simply consideration
of recall. Mr. Speaker, the unprecedented widespread and sustained province-wide
uproar over the budget underlines the need for a review and modernizing of the
foundations of our democratic system. What is happening today is pushing us to
this point. I believe that this is a good thing.
This
review should include consideration of recall legislation but also it should go
well beyond that and look at the other pillars of our democratic system. In
other words, recall is not the only answer to our democratic problems. But it
might be part of a made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador approach to comprehensive,
democratic reform, which we really need. We all know that.
I remind
the Member for Mount Pearl North that when he was deputy premier, he and his
colleagues slashed eight seats from the House of Assembly – he and his
colleagues – taking away the voice –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Lane):
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker. If my colleagues here in the House would like to hang on a sec –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
If my colleagues here in the
House, particularly on the other side of the House, hang on, I'll include them
as well. I sure wouldn't want to leave them out.
I
remember the Member for Mount Pearl North, when he was deputy premier, he and
his colleagues slashed eight seats from the House of Assembly, taking away the
voice of many rural residents at a time when rural representation is especially
needed in this House; all the more so in light of a budget that is especially
tough on people who live in rural districts.
MR. KENT:
She was doing so well.
MS. ROGERS:
I'm glad to hear the Member
for Mount Pearl North saying I'm doing so well.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind my colleagues that I'm going to make sure
everyone is included because that would only be fair. We're talking about
fairness and democracy.
The
slashing of rural seats greatly contributed to the democratic deficit in this
province. I remind Members this was a joint decision of the Conservatives and
the Liberal leaders and parties. They made their deals late at night in the
hallway. I saw them. Together they conspired to cut seats.
Today,
we see a few bold Liberal backbenchers speaking out on behalf of their
constituents, speaking out against their own government after being put in an
untenable position by a budget that is particularly harsh on rural Newfoundland
and Labrador. This budget is particularly harsh on people of rural Newfoundland
and Labrador.
These
Members had the courage to speak out and the conviction to speak out on behalf
of their constituents. These Members are part of the remaining remnant of rural
representation in this House. I applaud them for standing up to their own
leaders, leaders who were complicit in silencing so many rural voices in this
House.
Cutting
eight seats was most certainly not the democratic reform we are looking for. It
was a regressive, ill-thought-out move which has hurt the people of rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly, Mr. Speaker, in this present fiscal
reality.
I
remember standing up in this House speaking to that motion, speaking to that
legislation saying in this fiscal reality – we knew it then – that we needed, we
couldn't, we mustn't weaken representation for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now we are seeing the effects of that.
In the
last election, we, the NDP, promised democratic reform if elected, a promise
that we would keep. We promised to consult with young people and work to
increase youth-voter turnout and political participation by developing a
complete youth-voter strategy.
In our
platform we promised to modernize and strengthen the House of Assembly. We would
do it in these ways: by making all-party standing committees that examine,
debate and hold public hearings on important issues, including our resource use
– how we use and how we manage our resources – financial management, social and
health services and democratic renewal. We would make those a permanent fixture
in our democracy. Not just every now and then, but permanent fixtures, working
mechanisms in our democracy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
We would also conduct an
open, transparent review of the Standing Orders which is very much needed. We
would increase the minimum number of sitting days to 60 per year so that the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador know that we would have at least 60 sitting
days per year. At this point, we never know how many sitting days there will be.
We would
finally accept electronic petitions, empowering more people to engage with their
government on issues of concern. I have electronic petitions in my office right
now with 18,000 names on them. I will be bringing them down to the House and
presenting them in another form; 18,000 signatures from all over the province
that cannot officially be presented here because they are electronic.
We would
also adopt a fair allocation of time to all parties in Question Period. Not the
unfair allocation we have right now. We would adopt a lottery system to order
the private members' bills to be debated and voted on in the House of Assembly.
Not the current way it's done now.
To this
suite of measures, we would add a debate on alternatives to our current
first-past-the-post system. Our current system predates the invention of the
automobile and is in serious need of modernization and a debate on the merits,
pitfalls and best approaches to recall of Member under particular circumstances.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Having said this, the idea of
recall is not intended to be simply a consideration of the election outcome.
It's not a best of three. One of the challenges would be to lay out the
circumstances in which recall would be possible.
The
motion before us is very general in nature. The devil, as they say, is in the
details; details which would be very important to its implementation. The trick
to successful recall legislation is establishing a balance. On the one hand, it
can help to ensure Members remain accountable to their constituents. On the
other hand, MHAs should not be left constantly vulnerable to attack from those
who simply disagree with them.
The
details of a recall regime are crucial. As we've seen today, this motion is
silent in that regard. Having said that, we would be glad to participate in an
all-party process, including meaningful public engagement to enhance our
democracy, addressing some of the potential tools I have outlined in the past
few minutes, and including an examination of recall as simply one of the tools
of accountability of Members.
With
these explanatory remarks, I intend to vote in favour of this motion. Our party
would be pleased to participate in putting together a detailed plan for
democratic reform, including very much the modernization of our House and a
complete electoral reform review, with the objective of enhancing and improving
our democracy. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can do this.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Member for the District of Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to this resolution this afternoon, the
resolution being: “that this Honourable House supports the introduction of
legislation for the recall of elected Members of the House of Assembly, similar
in principle to the legislation in effect in British Columbia, where a
registered voter can petition to remove from office the Member of the Assembly
for that voter's district provided the voter collects signatures from more than
an established percentage of voters eligible to sign the petition in that
electoral district.”
Mr.
Speaker, to be clear for Members opposite, this private Member's resolution
today is not about taking down a government. It's not about that. It's about a
level of accountability. It's about a level of democracy. It's about improving
what people elect you for, what you are elected to do and the reasons why you
promised what you promised when you knocked at the door and what you said you
were going to do.
If a
Member decides to disappear and not show up to any events, not have any
meetings, not meet with their constituents, just stop doing the work that the
people elected them to do – they're looking for recourse. They're asking for
recourse. That's what this type of legislation would do.
That's
what this private Member's resolution we're proposing to the House would do. It
would say, well, I lined up. I put my hand up. I knocked on doors. I made a
promise to you that I was going to work hard for you, I was going to do my best
for you and I was going to look out for the best interests of you as my
constituents, and all the things that people say – some people say when they
knock on doors, because not everybody says that. Different people take different
approaches.
We know
Members opposite, in this particular case, and we just heard from a couple of
them this afternoon – and I'm going to get to that too, Mr. Speaker. They
knocked on doors and they made promises to the people. Like I have never seen
before in all the times that I've been elected to an office, like I have never
seen before, people are writing and asking in social media and they're saying:
What can I do? I am completely dissatisfied with the bill of goods I was sold by
my elected Member who promised no job losses, promised no tax increases,
promised to be an individual that's going to stand up for the people.
They're
saying: What can I do about that? What we tell them and I tell them – and I'll
be quite open and frank with what I tell people – I say you need to communicate
with your Members. You need to communicate with those Members. If you're opposed
to the budget, communicate with the government, each individual Member and their
Members and tell them how you feel about it, and tell them what you would like
them to do. That's all you can do.
Mr.
Speaker, last year during the election campaign, I remember Members opposite,
they campaigned on a platform. On November 6, when they rolled out one of their
levels of the platform, part of that was establishing an all-party committee on
democratic reform. When you read the fine print it says the committee will
consult with the public to gather perspectives on democracy in Newfoundland and
Labrador and make recommendations on ways to improve. Well, we've been here for
almost six months since the election, and we haven't seen any of that come from
the Members opposite yet, but people are writing us and asking us for it.
Now, as
a Member of the Opposition, I can tell you that it's very different in many,
many ways; but one of the big differences, people pick up the phone and call us
like I've never experienced before. Mr. Speaker, much unlike some of the Members
opposite, I just got what sounded to me like a lecture from the brand new, very
young, very youthful Member for Placentia West – absolutely was. Standing up
over there in his place telling us all about the good and bad and how terrible
we are over the last decade and listing off a few things he read about in the
media and knew about. That's exactly what he did. He stood in his place and he
did that. That's exactly what he did.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, there are many people in this House on both sides.
On the government Liberal side, the NDP side and here on the PC side, a little
bit of news for the Member for Placentia West – Bellevue: We were elected
– some of us have been serving our province and our people to the best of our
abilities maybe for longer than he's been alive, a long time. Many of us have.
Members over there too; the people over there served their public and served
their constituents and served the people in their community for a very long
time, and did it with the utmost respect for people, much unlike we see from that Member, a brand new Member.
I can't
believe with the tone he comes in and oh, he's in the government now and I'm
going to talk down to those bad, bad people over there. Oh, you got thrown out.
That's what recall is, he said. That's what he said. The people recalled you in
the election and threw you out. That's what he said.
I tell
the Member opposite, I've been elected several times and very proud of it, and
very proud to go back and knock on the doors of my constituents –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
– and I would be very
pleased, Mr. Speaker – without his interruption, if I may. I never interrupted
him. I never said a word. If he can't take it, he should keep his mouth shut and
think more closely about what he's saying, what he wants to say. If you can't
take it, you should be a little bit more respectful. Yes, you can shake your
head.
Mr.
Speaker, I am going to tell you, I knocked on the doors of the people in my area
in 2001 and I asked them to elect me to municipal council. There are lots of
Members over there with a history of municipal council, very successful. I got
elected and I worked hard. In 2005 they re-elected me; that is what they did.
In 2009,
I went back and knocked on their doors again and asked them to elect me again,
and they elected me again. A year later I made a move and ran in the
by-election. I asked them to elect me again to provincial politics, and they
elected me again. They elected me again in 2011.
I
knocked on their doors again in 2015, when everyone was saying we were going out
on our behinds, and I said elect me again. People said to me: Paul, you're up
against a hard go. You guys have been around for a long time and the winds have
changed around. But if I vote for you, will you stay? I said: Yes, I'll stay.
That was my commitment to them: Yes, I'll stay.
Mr.
Speaker, they elected me again. I earned the respect of my people that I
represent. I earned the respect of the people of the province. I come to work
every single day and I do my very best. I do my very best every time I come to
work but I can tell you, if I stand in this House and I'm going to call someone
out like the Member for Placentia West – Bellevue, after what he got on with
today, talking down to us in the tone that he did, yes, I'll do it. But if
you're going to call me out, you better be able to take it because I'll give it
back to you.
That's
against the grain that I was raised on, Mr. Speaker. That's not the way that I
was raised, but I'll tell you I always learn that I will look after myself and I
will defend myself when I need to.
Recall
legislation is about when people stop doing the job they promised to do. I
promised over and over and over for many years to do my job, I've worked hard
and I am grateful. I am grateful and honoured that people re-elected me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
I am grateful because I enjoy
the work that I do. When people call me and say I have a problem, I need your
help, can you help me out, it's a pleasure to do that. I quite often rely on the
people around us. That's what a team is about, about pulling oars together,
going in the same direction together, looking for the greater good of the
province. That's what we did. Every time I was elected, if it was municipal
council, school council way back when, even before municipal council, worked my
best and did my best.
Sometimes people don't do their best. Sometimes people will knock on the door
and say I promise you this and they don't mean it, or yes, I'll represent your
views.
The
Member for Placentia West – Bellevue, it was brought to my attention earlier
today how he put a note on his Facebook about – I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, wrong
Member, but I'll get to him in a minute. If you look on their Facebook, people
are writing will you, will you, will you. You don't see a lot of response from a
lot of the Members opposite. You don't see it.
Earlier
today the Member for Stephenville – Port au Port was up. He seems like a nice
man by the way. He seems like a decent individual. I have to say he seems like a
decent person. He seems like an honest young man who wants to do well.
AN HON. MEMBER:
A nice guy.
MR. P. DAVIS:
He is a nice guy, yes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
A sweetheart.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, he is. You can call him
a sweetheart. He's a nice guy; I'll go as far as that. He seems like he really
wants to do good.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You're a sweetheart, Paul.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER:
You're a sweetheart.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm a sweetheart? Oh, thanks.
He seems
like he really wants to do good and he seems like he's approaching it from an
honourable way. Not destruct and tear down the hard work that people have made
efforts in the past, but he looks like he's looking towards the future, which we
all should.
It's
easy, Mr. Speaker, to chastise others. My father always said those who live in
glass houses should not throw stones. We all do our best – not all of us. Most
of us try and do our best and do what's right. Sometimes we look back and say we
could have done that a little bit differently or we should have done that
differently. Well, so be it, Mr. Speaker. That's what it is to be human.
What
this is about is when someone knocks on your door, gets elected, packs up their
bags and says you're on your own. The Members opposite, many of them – the
Member for Placentia West – Bellevue got numerous messages sent to him telling
him vote no or we're voting you out the next time. Don't support the budget or
we're moving you out. He doesn't respond to them. He does not.
MR. BROWNE:
That's not true.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Many times, I can show you
lots where you never responded. I can show you lots.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Then there are other Members.
I got to him again, I guess, Mr. Speaker. He can't sit and listen.
Mr.
Speaker, then I hear from other people in St. Brendan's. The Member for Terra
Nova was up the other day talking, another man that seems like a good man. He
seems like a reasonable man.
Apparently what I heard from the people that he met with, he said something – I
wasn't there, Mr. Speaker, but he said something to the effect that we had to do
this. If we didn't do this, no one else is going to come in and take over the
province and we won't have a say.
He stood
in his place and said they all understood – when I spoke to people they all
understood. They almost went out of their minds, Mr. Speaker. Those people
almost went out of their minds because they're saying that's not what happened.
That's not what took place. They're out of their minds.
What did
they do? They call us and say: What do I do about this? What can I do about
this? They gave a pile of petitions to table in the House – yes, took them and
went off to table them in the House. We haven't seen them yet, but I hope they
will. He had petitions for the trestle in Terra Nova too, and he was
specifically given them to bring them in. Mr. Speaker, when people came to me –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
– when I was in government
and they said I have a petition for you to table in the House, I'd say no, but
I'll bring them to the minister for you. I'll make them aware for you – and if
people were fine with that, fine. At least I said if I'm not going to table
them, I'm not going to table them.
Mr.
Speaker, recall legislation is very simply this, if a person fails to do the job
– doesn't matter what side of the House you're on – if you've been elected and
you fail to represent your constituents, if you fail to hold up to the contract
in which they entered into with you, then the people have recourse. That's about
as simple as I can put it.
People
have recourse. Instead of just waiting for the next election in four years'
time, as the Member opposite talked about, they would have recourse. The other
thing it does, it also would let elected Members know there's a level of
accountability on you that when you get elected that people have a right that if
you don't do what you promised to do, if you don't do your work and make your
best effort, then they have recourse.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you many times when I was in the government, and I'm sure
Members opposite by now know fully what I'm talking about when I say that people
would call and say: Mr. Davis, or Paul, I need – I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker; I'm not
supposed to say that, am I? They call – what was it, Jerry? They'll call me
Jerry. They'll say: Can you help me with this? One of the hardest things to do
when you sit on that side of the House is to tell people I'm sorry; I can't do
that. You make an effort for them, you call them back and you say: I'm sorry; I
can't do that. That's one of the hardest things to do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, if you do it properly and you do it respectfully and you do it
correctly, then people, most of the time, 99 times out of a 100, it's been my
experience, people will say: Thank you for your effort, and I understand why you
can't. I don't agree with it – some people are irate when you can't help them,
and so be it, because it might be something very important to them, and it's
just one of those things that you can't do for them.
If you
do it over and over and over, you fail to show up, you fail to do your job, you
fail to represent people, the people of the province are looking for a recourse.
In
British Columbia, the Liberal government out in British Columbia who is power
today, there's recall legislation. What we're saying is that would be a good
framework where the government could start to say we we should look at
this. It doesn't happen very often, it happens very rarely, but it's there and
it's another level of accountability, and it's a level of democracy in many ways
whereby people will feel they
have some influence and control over the person they elected. That's what it's
about.
It's not
about bringing down a government. It's not standing here and talking about what
happened 10 years ago or five years ago or four years ago or whatever happened
in the past with government. It's not about that. It's about Members being
accountable to the people who elected them on the promises they made.
Mr.
Speaker, I made promises to people many times when I knocked on the door. My
promise consistently has been: I'll do my best. I've always steered away from
those specific oh, yes I'm going to do this for you and I'm going to do that
because that's the kind of promises that got the government in trouble today.
When
people say not on my watch, that's like saying I give you my word. As long as
I'm here, that will not happen. That's what that says. When someone says – and
several of them used it – not on my watch, to me, and if you speak to many
people, they'll say that means it won't happen as long as you're there. It's
putting your reputation and your job on the line. To me, if I said that to
someone it will never happen, then I'd have to seriously think about my future.
Recall
legislation is about Members doing their job, no matter what side of the House
you're on, what district you live in, if you're in government or Opposition or
the Third Party or if you sit as an Independent. It's about giving people
recourse. It's about creating accountability and giving another level of
democracy.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo – La Poile.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll try
my best to get right to this, as I only have 15 minutes to speak to this. I
think the first thing I'm going to do is respond to the comments from the Leader
of the Official Opposition who had 15 minutes to speak to recall legislation but
may have used a minute and a half to actually speak to the context of this PMR,
because he spent the other 13½ minutes trying to rant and have a tantrum about
comments from the Member on the other side.
Now,
it's absolutely incredible that the Leader of the Official Opposition can stand
up here and criticize him and every time he makes a comment, he talks about his
youth. We sit here and we try to encourage other people to run for the House of
Assembly. We encourage them to run. We encourage getting young people, to get
old people, to get males, to get females, to get different nationalities and the
minute they do, he stands up and has a tantrum.
It's
funny, the irony here today. He criticized the Minister of Education –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
He criticized the Minister of
Education for being upset about commentary by Members on the other side about
children. Yet, he stands up today and has a little rant and doesn't say an
absolute word about the context of the bill brought forward by the Member for
Mount Pearl North. It was an absolutely disgrace. Talking about accountability,
well, I'm going to go to a few more things he said there. It's funny when he was
on this side he said since 2004; but when he's on that side, judge me on my
record. Do as I say, not as I do.
The
first thing I'm going to talk about – because it's funny, we got elected on
November 30, some of us got put in Cabinet on December 14, and, in fact, I am
the minister responsible for democratic reform. It's May 4 and he is criticizing
us because we haven't instituted democratic reform from a government that was in
power from 2003 to 2015 and didn't do anything, not a word when it comes to
campaign finance, we're going to change it. We're going to change it. We are
going to change it. They did nothing.
We
brought in the fixed election rule, but last year, they didn't follow their own
rules in an effort to stretch their grasp on power as long as they could,
because they weren't going to go out unless they were grasping with their
fingernails on the way out the door, I would say to the former, unelected
premier of this province, elected by 300 people down at the Delta or wherever it
was. Again, don't stand here and criticize Members for giving their tone and
then stand up and do the exact same thing.
He wants
to talk complaints on Facebook, saying the Member didn't answer. I would suggest
that the Member talk about the complaints on Facebook that he's received in the
past and the actions that he took when he got complaints. I would say the Member
opposite knows exactly – the Leader of the Official Opposition when he was
premier, let him get up and talk about what he did when he got complaints by
members of the public because I can tell you what, he responded in a completely
different fashion.
I
actually am going to speak to this bill because it's important, but I don't need
to hear the Leader of the Official Opposition, somebody talking about knocking
on doors. He mentioned the Member for Terra Nova but the former member for Terra
Nova actually was heard complaining saying I wish the former premier had spent
some more time out here; I might have done better. But no, where did he go? He
went back to his own district to preserve his own seat. He went back. The
skipper goes down with the ship, I guess. That's how it goes. The skipper goes
down with the ship – not likely, not on that ship.
Again, I
wasn't planning on talking about that. Every Member that stood up in this House
before talked about accountability. They talked about this bill. They talked
about the reason why we should or why we should not, but not the former premier
of this province. He got up and went on rant, insulting and trying to degrade
the youngest Member of the House of Assembly. That's what he did. He spent his
time bullying the Member for Placentia.
That is
absolutely unacceptable and I would say, look, he has a duty to stand up and
talk to the bill. Don't tell us to talk about the bill and then stand up there
and go after somebody. If he wants to I can tell you what, I'm going to stand up
and answer him any time. I'm going to go after him on his record. He has a
record and the administration that he was a part of and which you are a part of
also had a record, I would say that.
Again,
I'm going to get to some of that record now when I get going, talking about
tone, talking about insulting –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER
(Osborne): Order,
please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Do you know what?
We have a record that started on December 1 and here's the thing – and I say to
the Member for Cape St. Francis if you want to talk, get up – get up – but I'm
going to have my say. Now, I listened to the rant by the Leader of the
Opposition, didn't say a word, listened to his rant, so extend me the same
courtesy.
Our record started on December 1. Who knows where that goes, but we were
elected with a four-year mandate. One that is governed – again, we had fixed
elections. It's not like before where governments could call an election
whenever they wanted. In this case, we do know that that got stretched out for
various reasons because we went through premier one, premier two, premier three
and a half, premier four. We went through that. We went through the almost
premier and then the Tom Marshall who got hauled back in like
The Godfather, Part III. We went
through that.
Now, we went through all that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, Mr.
Speaker, the Member for Cape St. Francis who doesn't have a word to say about
this has plenty to say when he's over there. I suggest he get up and have his
say on this. Again, the same courtesy –
MR. K. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Actually, he was
speaking but I didn't hear a word he was saying because it was perhaps
gobbledygook, I guess.
I'm going to continue on here –
MS. PERRY:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
I hear the Member
for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, the real champion of democratic reform.
Here's the thing, there is one province –
MS. PERRY:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, Mr.
Speaker, she can't stop; she can't help herself. She didn't have a word to say
to this. Again if you have something to say, put it on the record but if not,
listen. Listen, I would suggest that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now, I listened to
what the Member for Mount Pearl North put in. He is suggesting a –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. Thank you.
Again, it's funny because there are Members opposite – the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune can't help herself. Didn't have a word to say to
this, but has lots to say sitting down. It's amazing. Nothing of substance to
say standing up, nothing; but sitting down, there it is.
Democratic reform: We want to talk about recall legislation. It is in one
province. The former premier said the Liberals had it out in BC. Well, actually
it was brought in on 1996, so it has been around some time. It's the only
province that has it. It has not been enacted by any other province. I know that
it also exists in some States and I'm not going to get into that.
The fact
is we have a democracy here right now where you elect a Member, you have a
four-year term that is fixed by elections and then you go to the polls again.
People have every opportunity at that time to come out and express their will
and vote for the individual that they want in that office.
The fact
is prior to this time, we've seen many stages. Right now this is purely – I was
listening to it to see what it was all about, but there's no doubt this is just
purely a political PMR. That's all it is. I listened. I was hoping for some
reason – I know the Member has put forward some facts, but the context of the
language suggested this has nothing to do with actually trying to make something
different.
He's
just trying to make a point about the fact that right now we have something
that's very unpopular out there in the public and the fact is people are upset.
We know that; we see it. They see it too. A lot of people actually blame them.
They're not happy but I tell you what, they're not happy with the former
administration that blew everything.
The fact
is over time we've had many occasions where there were difficult situations,
difficult pieces of legislation. Go back to the '90s and education reform, a
very, very contentious time. I know Voisey's Bay was a very – I wasn't here in
this House, but I'm sure there was a raucous debate in this House.
In my
time here, we had Bill 29. It's funny; they talk about hearing from the Members.
Well, I heard from a lot of people on Bill 29. I know the Members opposite also
heard from a lot of people on Bill 29. I'm sure that they heard it. They may
have responded; I don't know. I don't care about that.
What I'm
saying, though, is that they made a decision, I'm sure, I'm assuming, that they
thought was right; but it was unpopular, there was no doubt. We led a
filibuster. It gained attention. In fact, it got national attention. It was a
huge issue. The fact is, though, at the end of the day they went ahead and
actually invoked closure on the House, had a vote and brought in Bill 29.
If they
were to listen to what the people had said at that time, they wouldn't have done
it. If they had recall legislation at that time, I'm sure that it would have
been brought forward, but you cannot make your decisions based on the fear of
recall. You have to make your decisions based on what you think is right,
knowing that over time you accumulate a record and you will bring that record to
the people that you are lucky enough to represent. That's what's going on.
I'm sure
there were people back during the education reform debate that were – because I
know that one was extremely nasty. In many places it was hugely emotional. I'm
sure there were Members that were threatened saying, you're never getting in
again. If you do this, you're never getting in. They did what they had to do.
It's funny. When you look back on it now we say in hindsight it was the right
decision, but can you imagine if the decision was made based on the fear of
getting recalled? Can you imagine that? We've had this.
I could
get back to the fact that up to Monday I had never heard this once from a single
Member of the Opposition in speech or in writing ever. I never heard it before.
So it's funny, a government that was elected in 2003, 2007, and 2011 never
thought it necessary to have it. I don't know, maybe the idea was brought up
behind closed doors, I have no idea. It's funny now; just a few months after
they are not in power they want this done. The fact is at the end of the day
they didn't do it then because they didn't think it was the right idea. They're
doing it now because they're in Opposition and it's the political move to do.
If you
want to talk about procedure and House reform it's funny, actually. They almost
never brought this in because they didn't enter it. They didn't enter the
motion. We actually had to give leave to enter. Now, if we wanted to be spitey,
we could have denied them the opportunity to do this, but we didn't because we
should have this debate here. We should have this debate on the floor. There's
no problem with that.
I've had
this too. I've brought forward things in the past. In fact, in 2012 I
brought forward a motion to open the House of Assembly and close the House of
Assembly at regular intervals. That year when we got elected – we got elected in
October 2011 and the House didn't open until March – there was a huge outcry by
people saying, why don't you open the House? The former premier at the time said
there's no need to have a debate. We don't need to go back there.
MR. K. PARSONS:
The same thing (inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think the Member opposite for Cape St. Francis forgets there's a difference
between October 11 and November 30. There's a bit of a difference there. I don't
want to get into how a calendar works here, but anyways.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
The fact is at that time I brought forward a motion. I don't think it was even
as contentious as this one is, because this is one that can draw strong
emotions. I brought forward one saying we need to make sure the House of
Assembly, the people's House as we call it, could open up
assuredly, no matter what. You couldn't keep it closed for no reason.
In fact,
I can guarantee you, contrary to what the Leader of the Official Opposition
says, these are things that are going to happen. We are going to make it happen.
Do you know what? It's been five months. The fact is we've had a lot of work to
do in those five months, including dealing with a huge financial mess that was
left to us. Plus everybody here is learning their positions. Ministers are
learning their positions. There's lots of work to do. They get that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
The fact is we are going to
make changes. Actually, I've spoken to Members on the other side about going and
changing the Standing Orders to update them, to actually make them relevant. The
fact is at that time when I tried to change something like actually opening the
House, not a chance, voted down. The former House Leader at that time screeched
at me so loud that he actually came over and apologized after. My God, how could
you suggest something like that? I remember that debate. The fact is that was
something like keeping the House open, and in this case, we're talking about
recall legislation.
I think
the Members on our side have done a very, very good job of explaining why we
need to do what we think is right. Our record will be judged over the course of
our mandate which is four years. I can guarantee you, we'll have the four years
and we're not going to change the election date to grasp onto power like the
previous government did.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the Member for Mount Pearl
North speaks now he shall close debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank your, Mr. Speaker.
I'll do
my best to bring us back to the subject we're debating here today which is the
notion of recall legislation. What we're calling for is that all parties put
politics aside actually, and we get representatives from the three parties
together. It can take weeks or months. It can take as long as necessary to
examine the options when it comes to recall legislation, and see if we can come
up with something that would work here in Newfoundland and Labrador, learning
from what's gone on in British Columbia, the United States and other places in
the world.
I
finished my comments earlier talking about the potential effect recall
legislation could have on Opposition Members with a popular government. That
isn't the circumstance today, but things change really fast in politics, Mr.
Speaker, as many of us know.
Let me
give you another scenario; imagine how people feel when a Member crosses the
floor to sit with another party or as an Independent. The public might strongly
support such a move. They may even re-elect Members who've done so, or they may
not. Perhaps they want to have a say. Perhaps the public would trigger a
petition for recall so they could have a say in that decision. Perhaps the
petition for recall would utterly fail. That in itself would constitute kind of
an endorsement of the sitting Member.
Mr. Speaker, there are new ways of doing things. They are all based on the
premise that a government governs at the pleasure of voters. Voters must be
empowered to shape the ways in which they are governed. We simply don't have to
trust others to rule our lives. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that we've
all been raised watching American television because this way of thinking is
very American. This idea of governance is spreading around the world.
To
governments that mistrust or fear the people, this movement is very troubling.
Who knows what might happen when people demand a greater say, like they are
doing right now in Newfoundland and Labrador. Who can say their way is better
than the democratic way? Who has the right to put his or her own views against
that of the people?
We've
seen too many things go wrong over the years to relinquish our power to shape
our own destiny. We are tired of having to say hindsight is 20/20 and picking up
the pieces years down the road. We want an electoral system, a democratic system
that's more responsive. We want a democratic system that's more adaptable. We
want a democratic system that's open to improvement.
Mr.
Speaker, the anger over this year's budget is not just anger about the choices
that have been imposed. It's also anger over the fact that people feel powerless
to do anything about it. They feel taken for granted. They feel hoodwinked,
manipulated, led down a garden path, sold a bill of goods.
They see
their Members rise in this House or in local media or on social media to
vocalize their constituents' concerns over the budget, and then they see those
very same Members stand to vote in favour of passing the very measures they have
just criticized. That's been going on in this House in recent days and it will
go on in the days ahead as well.
They
might be forgiven for thinking their Members are marionettes on strings,
operated by the Premier or the Finance Minister and the Cabinet. Well, many
people think the strings are their own to pull. They believe the Members ought
to be more responsive to the public will rather than the Premier's will.
Are
people wrong to want that? Is that idea too dangerous for our democracy? Would
that spell the end of stable government like government backbenchers suggested
it would today? Would that throw out our province to the wolves? Of course not.
To say that, you'd have to believe that the people who elected us really don't
get it, you'd have to believe that your wisdom is greater than the people's.
This
vote today is truly a vote about the people. A vote for recall is a vote to give
the power to the people to chart their own destiny. A vote against recall is a
vote for the power to assert your own will over the peoples' and protect
yourself from the consequences of that.
This is
Private Members' Day, Mr. Speaker. There's been discussion in recent days about
free votes and confidence votes. Well, it's Private Members' Day, so this is in
effect a free vote. It's not a confidence vote. Government won't fall because we
agree to set up a committee to look at an issue that I think needs to be looked
at.
We did
it on mental health. At first, we were reluctant. I was reluctant. But we
listened to the debate on the floor of this very House and we said there's no
harm in coming together on an issue that makes sense and working together.
That's all I'm asking today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
The government can write the
legislation, Mr. Speaker. They have the power to bring in whatever legislation
they wish or don't wish. They have a strong mandate and they ultimately have
control. All I'm saying is let's get together and look at this. There's no
downside to government. Despite the rough economic times and political times we
find ourselves in, there's no downside to striking a committee to look at this.
I urge
Members, because this is a free vote, to think about the wishes of the people
who put them here and vote accordingly. Will you deny your constituents the
power to hold your feet to the fire, or are you truly prepared to be governed by
those you stand here to represent?
Mr.
Speaker, I want to wish everybody a happy McHappy Day. I'm willing to bet the
local McDonalds restaurants don't hire employees with a clause that they can't
be fired for four years. Yet, any Member voting against recall is saying just
that, that voters shouldn't be able to fire them between elections. If an
elected representative loses the confidence of their constituents, I believe
those constituents should have the ability to fire their MHA.
I
believe that as an elected representative, my constituents should have
mechanisms to hold me accountable beyond a general election. I believe if they
think I'm doing a poor job representing them, they should be able to fire me
too. They shouldn't have to wait until the next election to do so.
This
isn't an initiative that would allow voters to second guess every decision
that's made by MHAs, like the Member for Stephenville – Port au Port suggested.
Rather, it would allow voters to fire their MHA if they are unhappy with how
they are being represented.
I know
there are many details to discuss in order to ensure we enact sound legislation,
which is why further discussion is needed, which is why we should set up a
committee and just look at this. That's all I'm asking today.
I thank
the New Democratic Party for their support. I urge the government to reconsider.
I understand the to and fro that happens in this Legislature. I understand in
our parliamentary system sometimes we take opposing views for the sake of taking
opposing views. I don't think that's right. I really don't. I think today is an
opportunity to say hey, this is an idea that's worth at least exploring.
Times
have changed a lot since we first started using representative democracy. We owe
it to our constituents that we also change with the times. People want more
today than a vote every four years. They want accountability. They want to have
recourse if they feel their MHA is doing a poor job.
Most
everyone in our society works with the understanding that if they do a poor job
at work, they'll eventually get fired. Our elected representatives, Mr. Speaker,
should be no different. Voters should be able to fire their MHA, just like they
are able to elect them in the first place. What is critical to recognize here is
that recall legislation can actually empower voters, while also making our
elected representatives more accountable.
The
question is: Do Members agree that recall legislation may improve our democracy,
provide more accountability and empower voters? I do. I believe that discussion
needs to happen. The debate about the details of the legislation is best left to
a committee, which is what I'm proposing we do together.
A vote
against this motion should be seen as a vote against people that are upset and
people that have concerns and aren't sure what to do about those concerns. It's
a vote against people who want to participate more in our democracy. It will be
a vote in favour of the status quo and it will be a vote in favour of
politicians protecting their own self-interest.
The
government Members voting against this motion shows they don't think voters
should be able to fire them. They don't think voters should be able to hold them
accountable for their performance or for broken promises. So I suspect that
unfortunately government will whip the vote on this one. Will the Premier decide
for all his MHAs how they must vote, or will they permitted to vote in the best
interests of their constituents?
I
predict very shortly, Mr. Speaker, that they'll all stand together and vote
against this motion. Will Members opposite vote in favour of their constituents,
or will they vote to maintain the status quo, to stand in the way of democratic
reform that we all agree is so desperately needed? Will they ensure that no
matter how angry people are about whatever happens to be going on or any matter,
that they won't be able to take democratic action?
Mr.
Speaker, I have a few minutes left. I know it's late in the day, but I want to
pick up on a few of the comments that were made by Members during the debate. I
thank Members for participating in the debate. I sincerely wish that more
Members had focused on the actual subject that we're debating here today, but
such is life. I acknowledge that the Member for St. John's Centre did focus on
the issue that we were debating today.
Let me
start with her comments, Mr. Speaker. She said that this is one of many tools
that should be carefully examined when we talk about modernizing our democracy,
and I fully agree. This is just one, but right now there are a lot of people out
there who feel they have no options. This is about giving people more options.
She also said that we need comprehensive democratic reform, and I agree. Recall
legislation is one small piece, but it's an important piece that can make a
difference.
The
Member for Stephenville – Port au Port and the Member for Placentia West –
Bellevue, I was disappointed. I thought as new Members of this House, they may
be open to new ideas and challenging the status quo. Instead, we see them toeing
the party line today. Some of the rhetoric that's existed for years about recall
legislation is what was spouted today.
The
Member for Stephenville – Port au Port talked about this being costly and
impractical and political and undemocratic. He used voter apathy as an excuse.
None of those things wash and I hope in my remarks earlier today that I
discounted some of those arguments.
He also
said that we should have brought in recall legislation. Mr. Speaker, when recall
legislation has been called for around the country, it's often been Opposition
parties that have been advocating for it, just like we're doing today. We didn't
bring it in. The Liberal Party didn't propose it. The New Democratic Party
didn't propose it, but it's a new day and we have an opportunity today to strike
a committee and to look at this together, and that's all I'm asking.
The
Member for Placentia West – Bellevue used the stability argument, that this
would somehow create mass instability in government and implied that it was
about recalling government. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr.
Speaker. This is about holding individual Members of the House of Assembly
accountable to their constituents. This is about allowing voters, about allowing
the people of the province who are not just tax filers as they were referred to
in Question Period, this is about allowing the people of the province to have a
greater say in democracy, not just every four years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile, who was rather animated, I might add, suggested that we
didn't advance democratic reform. I would argue that there were reforms that
have taken place in recent years that have moved things forward.
I know
he and I agree that there is a lot more work to do. I know the New Democratic
Party agrees as well. We have lots of tradition in this parliamentary system
that we're engaged in and I believe there is a better way, and I hope over the
next 3½ years we'll have a chance to work together to advance parliamentary
reform and democratic reform.
Today is
an opportunity to say we're serious about it. That it's not just another broken
red-book promise. I hope that government Members will reconsider.
Just to
remind the Member for Burgeo – La Poile of some of the things we did do, that I
believe have improved how things are being done in this Legislature and within
government. We implemented fixed-date elections, as I alluded to earlier. We did
change the number of seats in this House to better reflect the size of the
province in terms of population.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
We launched the Open Government Initiative, which is all about increasing
dialogue and collaboration and making more information available to people,
making government data available to people so that businesses and individual
citizens can do more with it. I hope government does pursue those 43 initiatives
in the Open Government Action Plan. I worry that they won't. I suspect we'll
hear more about that in recent weeks.
We went
from having some of the worst legislation in the country, when it came to access
to information and protection of privacy, to having the best legislation in the
country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Yes, we weren't perfect, I'd
say to the Members opposite. We recognized that we could do better and we took
steps to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Yes, it was costly. Members
opposite are suggesting that these recall provisions could be costly. We made
the changes and we invested the money in ensuring we had the best ATIPP
legislation in the country because it was the right thing to do for democracy.
Exploring recall legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the right thing to do for
democracy.
Members
opposite have suggested that this is just about politics. Well, I assure you it
isn't, Mr. Speaker. All we're suggesting is that we strike a committee of the
Legislature. It's no different than the work we're doing together around mental
health and addictions.
We put
politics aside, despite the fact that as a government we were about to say no,
we don't need to strike an all-party committee. Well, we did. We listened and we
did. In this instance I'm saying if we're all saying that we need democratic
reform, then I'm saying let's strike a committee and let's look at recall
legislation. It's worked in BC, it's worked in other jurisdictions around the
world, and it's been in place for decades.
Mr.
Speaker, here's an opportunity for us to do something together. Here's an
opportunity for us to improve democracy. Here's an opportunity for the public to
have a way to make the people they elect more accountable to their constituents.
That's a good thing and I urge all Members of this hon. House to stand and vote
with their constituents this afternoon.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour of the
motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready for the
question?
All
those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK (Ms. Barnes):
Mr. Paul Davis, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin
Parsons, Mr. Petten, Ms. Rogers.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr.
Kirby, Mr. Lane, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Browne, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Edmunds, Mr.
Letto, Ms. Haley, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr. Derek Bennett, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Bragg,
Ms. Parsley, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Warr, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dean, Mr. King.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: eight; the nays: 24.
MR. SPEAKER:
I declare the motion
defeated.
It being
Private Members' Day, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 in the
afternoon.