May 25,
2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 33
The
House met at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I would
like to welcome to the public galleries today Shannon Hickey, who is the subject
of a Member's statement. As well, we welcome to our gallery Mayor Andrew Shea of
Fogo Island; as well as, I believe there are some officials from the council and
some council members as well.
Welcome
to our galleries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we have the Members for the Districts of Harbour Main, Cape St. Francis,
Virginia Waters Pleasantville, Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, Conception Bay
South and St. George's Humber.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
MS. PARSLEY:
Today I give rise to share
the success witnessed this weekend in Avondale, at the Eastbound International
Speedway and Concert Park.
Fans
from across our province, Canada and the US witnessed the opening of the fourth
NASCAR Home Track in Canada.
The
excitement and anticipation was electrifying. The roar and applause of the fans
and race car engines echoed in the hillsides. We were spellbound.
I had
the pleasure of speaking with Kevin Nevalainen, event management director, who
was elated with the overall success of the event.
The
owner of Eastbound International Speedway, Paddy Squires, has a remarkable
commitment to our youth, as seen through their schools program and race track
driver training programs. Kudos to Paddy who turned his dream into a reality.
Professionalism reigns supreme in the entire undertaking. Let us be proud of
their achievements, welcome them and their events wholeheartedly and wish them
every success.
Squires
and the entire team never let the fans down with any entertainment provided,
this weekend being no exception.
Mr.
Speaker, collectively, let us send our congratulations to the Squires team and
thank them for their contributions to the community and province.
Let us
all rise to say thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate the 2016 Business Award winners in the
Town of Torbay.
On May
5, I had the pleasure of attending the Torbay Business Awards event held at the
Kinsmen Centre. Most of the nominees for the awards were in attendance.
Economic
Development Officer, Ross Houlihan, spoke on the recent municipal development
projects and activities in Torbay; however, the highlight of the evening was the
awards presentation.
New
Business of the Year was awarded to Edge Beauty Bar co-owners Katie Porter and
Suzette Kelly; two young business ladies were delighted with their award.
Entrepreneur of the Year was a husband and wife team, Glen and Chen Stokes, who
are owner operators of Mrs. Liddy's Bar and Breakout NL.
Business
of the Year award was presented to Brian Eason and Cynthia Littlejohn, owner
operators of Joint Therapy. They became just the second business to ever win two
Torbay Business Awards, winning New Business Award in 2015.
The
Customer Commitment award went to a long time established business in Torbay,
Dr. Mathai Dentistry. I can attest of her commitment first-hand because she is
my dentist and one of the nicest ladies you will ever meet.
I would
like to congratulate all involved.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to recognize Major William G.
Tilley of the Church Lads Brigade on receiving his honourary Doctor of Canon Law
from Queens College.
At the
age of 101, Major Tilley received this honourary degree on May 12 at the Church
of St. Mary the Virgin in St. John's. In addition to family and friends, their
Honours, Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Frank Fagan and the Honourable
Patricia Fagan were in attendance to mark this monumental occasion.
Major
Tilley first joined the CLB in 1926. He has served for 90 consecutive years.
Major Tilley has been a CLB archivist since 1977 and the Drum Major for the CLB
Regimental Band for 63 years.
He is
still a pillar of the brigade and a mentor for many young men and women who
serve in the CLB today. I consider it a great privilege to know Major Tilley and
I am proud to call him a friend.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Major William G. Tilley on
receiving his honourary degree and thank him for over 90 years of service to the
CLB and to the community.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I rise in this hon. House to
congratulate Ms. Shannon Hickey, recipient of one of six HSBC Bank Canada Woman
Leader of Tomorrow Regional Awards in 2015.
As the
leader of Enactus Canada group at the College of the North Atlantic, business
owner and active volunteer, Shannon understands what it means to achieve success
and she has great empathy for others. She recognizes the importance of
collaboration to achieve positive results. Shannon successfully lobbied and
secured funding for her group to attend the global Enactus event in Beijing. She
is actively involved in programs such as Independent You, which teaches
financial literacy and responsibility to high school students; and Total
Exposure, which promotes the artwork of outpatients who deal with mental health
issues.
With a
humorous nature and vivacious spirit, Shannon is always welcome at any event and
readily lends a hand for numerous community projects; she volunteers with
Habitat for Humanity and the Sacred Heart RC Church and actively supports the
St. Lawrence Anglican Church in her hometown of Belleoram.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join with me in extending congratulations to
Shannon and encourage her to continue offering her skills to help people and our
communities.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on March 11, I had the pleasure of attending the 140th anniversary
dinner at the Prince of Orange Lodge, LOL #23 at the Foxtrap Parish Hall.
The
Loyal Orange Association has made a significant contribution to our community
and the residents of Newfoundland through their commitment to various
fundraising initiatives, including the CBS Monument of Honour, Janeway, Daffodil
Place and many more worthwhile charities.
On March
11, 1876, Most Worshipful Grand Master and Sovereign of the Loyal Orange
Association of Canada, Brother M. Bonnell travelled to Newfoundland from Nova
Scotia by train to Kelligrews. He entered the new building in Middle Bight Road
where he presented the Loyal Orange Warrant and dedicated and named the hall
Prince of Orange #23.
During
the early years the Orange Lodges were the only meeting halls in many towns.
Prince of Orange #23 has served many purposes such as a church, classrooms, a
theatre and a polling station where political rallies and fundraisers were held.
The social life of the Orange Lodge itself was celebrated in the form of dances,
wedding receptions, concerts, birthdays and anniversary parties.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Prince of Orange, LOL #23 on
its 140th Anniversary.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for St. George's
Humber.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, each year the
Canadian national darts competition sees the finest young dart players in Canada
compete. This past weekend nine provinces participated, including a team from
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The age
range of the teams is from 10 to 18 years old, and there are two groups: those
under 16, and those under 19. Each province submits a team and they play
singles, doubles, mixed doubles and team competition.
Awards
are given for each competition and points are awarded for each win and total.
The province with the highest total wins the Canada Cup, which gives the
province the bragging rights as being the best in Canada.
This
year, for only the second time in its history, Newfoundland and Labrador won
that cup. Three members were from the District of St. George's Humber: Kaylee
Barnes, Myaella Stoddard and Darcee Gale. The other members were Amy Spracklin,
Erica Spracklin, Brad Dobbin, Devon Pope, Cody Kerrivan, Hunter Pike and Jayden
Kelly.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating the Newfoundland and Labrador youth
darts team on winning the Canada Cup.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
The Commemoration
of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel
MR. SPEAKER:
Today for Honour 100, we have
the Member for the District of Placentia West Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
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: John Benjamin Ridgley, Garland Ridout, Sydney Ridout, Thomas J. Ring,
Albert Roberts, Cecil Roberts, Francis Roberts, Frank Roberts, Frank Roberts,
John Roberts, Ray Maxwell Roberts, Thomas Stephen Roberts, Edward Joseph
Rodgers, Thomas Rodgers, Thomas Edward Rodgers, Simeon Rogers, Walter Rolls,
Harold Romaine, Thomas Ronan, William Joseph Roost, Frederick Charles Roper,
Cecil Rose, George Rose, George Rose, James Rose, John Rose, John Rose, Peter
Rose, Michael Joseph Ross, R. Wallace Ross, Matthew Rossiter, Charles Rowe,
Frederick Rowe, Henry Rowe, Henry Mott Rowe, Edward Clayton Rowsell, Gordon
Rowsell, H. John R. Rowsell, Reginald S. Rowsell, John Russell.
(Moment of silence.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Please be seated.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on Friday I was in Heart's Delights-Islington along with Minister Judy
Foote where we had the pleasure of participating in the announcement of the 2016
recreational cod fishery.
I am
very pleased with the federal government's decision to extend the recreational
fishery by 14 days, which includes all weekends in July and August, as well as
the Canada Day and Labour Day long weekends.
The
recreational fishery presents exciting opportunities for growth, including
marine tourism. With the recreational fishery now extended into weekends,
provincially-licenced tour boat operators will have the opportunity to provide
tourists with a truly unique experience.
This was
a priority area for the Premier when he appointed me as Fisheries Minister and
Minister of Aquaculture, to work with my federal counterparts to expand the
recreational fishery and to look at opportunities to develop marine tourism.
Planning
for the revitalization of groundfish is something that was also outlined in my
mandate letter. We have already taken steps toward achieving this through
funding for the establishment of a Fisheries Advisory Council and the new
Seafood Innovation and Transition Program announced in
Budget 2016.
Mr.
Speaker, the recreational fishery is something that many people look forward to
every year. As stocks rebound we will continue to support expansion of both the
recreational and commercial cod fisheries.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I, too, am pleased with the
announcement of the recreational cod fishery. Every week since the House opened
I presented a petition emphasizing the problems in the fishery and making sure
it was done in a way that safety was paramount in everything.
Putting
people on the water on the weekends and giving them more opportunity to get out
is a great announcement, but it's unfortunate it isn't a priority of this
government over across the way because our fishery needs a lot more.
We have
a shrimp fishery that's in crisis. We have a crab fishery where the catches are
way down. Our harvesters are wondering where their quotas are. I'd like to see
the government act more and represent the harvesters in this province.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. The changes to the
recreational cod fishery will provide new opportunities for marine tourism. Of
course, our tourism industry in coastal communities is inextricably tied to our
inshore fishery. I look forward to seeing the commercial cod management measures
for 2016 and hope they provide commensurate measures for the commercial fishery
as the industry continues to cope with challenging changes.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the provincial
government is committed to ensuring students in Newfoundland and Labrador have
their educational needs met through various resources including distance
education.
Through
the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation, we are ensuring that senior
high school students, especially those in rural and remote areas, have access to
the courses they need for a rich and diverse educational experience.
CDLI is
a great learning and teaching resource which supports approximately 950 students
completing over 40 courses in 118 schools. Subject areas for CDLI courses
include math, science, English language arts, social studies, technology
education, career education, skilled trades, French, music and art.
Mr.
Speaker, as the end of another school year quickly approaches, many of our
senior high and intermediate students will be taking public and final exams. The
resources available on the CDLI website are not limited to students in rural or
remote regions. This online resource provides high quality programming to all
students and offers free high school review materials, old exams to review for
practice, and free live online tutoring. Online tutoring is also available in
math and science for students in grades seven to nine.
I
encourage all students to take advantage of what CDLI has to offer by visiting
www.cdli.ca.
I also invite Members of the House of Assembly to share this information with
students in their districts as they prepare to write exams.
Good
luck to all students with their year-end exams.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minster for the advance copy of his statement. It's great to see the
minister talking about an important program our administration believes so
strongly in. A program we responsibly invested in.
I have
to say, it's beyond ironic that the minister who will be largely responsible for
doing damage to the province's education system is fabricating concerns over
whether students have access to courses and programs. This statement is
extremely disingenuous when at the same time you're closing schools, axing 54
libraries, cancelling school infrastructure projects, taxing books, laying off
teachers, combining grades and gutting the Intensive Core French program.
You want
to brag about what you're doing to improve access to education resources this
minister and this government have lost touch with all reality. Their polling
numbers today show that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for St. John's
East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. The CDLI has certainly
been successful in the delivery of high school courses over the years. I'm sure
students are finding the online study resources helpful as well.
However,
the bottom line, and what the minister has not told us, is that some areas still
have slow and intermittent Internet which creates barriers. It would be helpful
if he had told us what is being done to ensure that all students across the
province have equal access.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on April 20 the Premier, flanked by the Minister of Natural Resources,
stood before the media and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and stressed
that the former CEO of Nalcor's resignation was a personal one that was first
discussed at a meeting between the two on Sunday, April 17, and later confirmed
at a meeting on Tuesday evening, April 19.
I ask
the Premier: When you stood before the cameras and the people of the province on
April 20 and announced Mr. Martin's resignation, were you aware that it was
actually a termination and not a resignation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
information, of course, based on the discussion that I had with Mr. Martin was
that he was stepping aside. As a matter of fact, these are not just my words,
but these are the words of the former CEO of Nalcor.
Just
immediately after we addressed the media, Mr. Martin, the outgoing CEO,
addressed the media himself. It was his words that he was stepping aside and
that it was his decision based on where he was in his life.
So the
stepping aside was actually a decision by Mr. Martin. These were his words and
this is what he confirmed at around 11:45 on April 20.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know
government officials and we know lawyers were involved representing all parties
in these discussions.
I ask
the Premier: During the meeting with the former CEO, Mr. Martin, on Sunday,
April 17, did Mr. Martin tell you that he was going to resign?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
meeting on Sunday night was a meeting that Mr. Martin called for. He was the one
who asked for that meeting. A number of issues were discussed around Nalcor and
so on.
It was
then we took some time, and it was in a meeting on Tuesday that he then informed
us that he would be actually making his decision and on Wednesday morning he
would be stepping aside. That's the information that was shared at the meeting
on Tuesday, not the Sunday meeting at all, I say to the former premier. It was
on the Tuesday evening.
Then
that decision led into the events of April 20. So the information that we have
now, that's available to us, is now with the Department of Justice and they will
be reviewing the information that's available. Then we'll be making our
decision, what options we have, as a government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
were two meetings, one on Sunday, April 17 and one on Wednesday, April 19.
Again, we know officials and lawyers were heavily involved in the discussion and
process.
I ask
the Premier: When was the issue of severance first discussed with Mr. Martin?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
meeting was on Sunday night. There was a meeting requested by Mr. Martin, and
the second meeting actually took place on Tuesday night. The discussion around
severance is a question you would have to ask the board of directors or Mr.
Martin, because at that point anything that was related to his contract was with
the board at directors at Nalcor.
The
contract for the CEO was with the board of directors at Nalcor. So that question
would best be asked of those parties.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
say to the Premier there were two meetings, Sunday, April 17 and the next one on
Tuesday, April 19.
I ask
the Premier again: When was the issue of severance first discussed? Was it on
Tuesday night or was it on Sunday night?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the terms of the contract, as I said, that was with the board of directors of
Nalcor, so that any decision around what the severance package could look like
was a decision that was made by the board of directors.
Subsequent to that, I was not part of the discussion around what any severance
package would look like. Did I see any draft of an agreement that was made? No,
I did not, so none of that information was shared with me. The information that
I got came to us on May 5. That information is now with the Department of
Justice for them to review and do their own analysis, to provide analysis and
advice that would come back to us. We will consider what options that we have
available to us based on the information that we will get from the Department of
Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier,
a very simple question: Did you discuss severance with Mr. Martin on Tuesday,
April 19?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
any discussion on severance was with the board of directors. The contract was
with the board of directors. I can't say it any more clearer than that. So any
severance package would have been discussed with the board of directors of
Nalcor. That was their decision. The CEO, it's their employee, the contract that
they had was held with them, Mr. Speaker. So any settlement agreement, any
decision around what the package would look like, was done by the board of
directors of Nalcor. That was not something that I was party to; they did that
themselves. The information that we have now available to us made available to
us on May 5 is now with the Department of Justice for their review, for their
analysis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's
not the question I asked. So I'm going to ask the question again, it's very
simple.
On April
19, did you discuss severance with Mr. Martin?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
would with any contract that's in place, I would expect that any agency would
live up to whatever the contracts and conditions are. The contract in this
particular case with the CEO, Mr. Martin, squarely, the responsibility to
deliver on whatever the conditions of the employment for their CEO was with the
board of directors of Nalcor. The decision was made by the board of directors of
Nalcor. That was not something I was party to. The information came to me on May
5. I can't say it any more clearly than that.
I'm not
so sure if the outgoing premier by the way, it was a contract that was
designed by the previous administration and a board appointed by them.
So, with
that said, the information that I received on May 5 is now with the Department
of Justice.
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
him that the Minister of Finance was on the board at the time, but he hasn't
answered the question. Premier, I don't know why you won't answer the question.
It's a very simple question. The fact you won't answer it is significant.
Did you
discuss severance with Mr. Martin in your discussion with him on April 19? A
simple question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the former premier, of all people in this province, should know that the CEO was
an employee, the CEO of Nalcor. It wasn't my responsibility and my objective
anything at all related to the Office of the Premier. Maybe they are used to
interfering in that office, I can't answer that. Maybe that's something they did
on a regular basis.
But, the
contract with the CEO and the severance package that became public on May 4, the
information I received around that on May 5, is now with the Department of
Justice. We will be exploring what options we have as a government, that we have
available to us, which would include how severance was paid and so on. So, this
will be analyzed and reviewed by the Department of Justice, then the decision on
what options we have available to us on behalf of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. That's when we will make the decision that we have that's
available to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So we're
going to assume he did discuss it. He won't answer the question. He won't
provide the information, so we're going to assume that he did discuss it.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to ask the Premier: Considering we now know or it's safe to
conclude because you won't say otherwise you had a discussion about severance.
If you had a problem with the severance, the $1.4 million severance, why didn't
you move on it or take action on it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm sure
the former premier would know just by his own management, his own planning, that
he makes a lot of assumptions. As a matter of fact, they assumed they had a deal
with the fisheries fund. They assumed wrong. They also assumed that this year we
would not have a $2.7 billion deficit. Mr. Speaker, they were wrong. So I was
not about to make any assumptions.
The
contract with the CEO squarely lied with the was with the board of directors
of Nalcor. That information that I became aware of on May 5 is with the
Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker, and that's when the decisions will be made
on what options we have available to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
It's regrettable that I have
to interrupt question and answer period. I'm asking the Member for Mount Pearl
North to respect the individual that has been recognized to speak.
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier won't answer, won't say specifically if he did or did not, won't confirm
or deny that he had discussions on severance with Mr. Martin. He did say on May
5 he became aware. The rest of the province knew on May 4. He became aware on
May 5.
I ask
the Premier: What did you instruct the Department of Justice to do on May 5, and
who in the department was assigned to do whatever it is you wanted done?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I
said, the details around the severance package which I became aware of on May 5.
Then after review of that, we actually handed that over to the Department of
Justice which is where it is today. Right now, I think the responsibility on all
of us is to let the Department of Justice take the time they need to do a proper
review so that we will know what options we have available to us based on the
decision that was made by the former board of Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier: Who did you contact in the Department of Justice?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe
the former premier, what he's asking for is specific names. We have a full group
of people, of course, that are within the Department of Justice. I'm not in that
department on a day-to-day basis but I'm very comfortable and very confident in
the people we have working on that file within the Department of Justice.
Clearly,
I will tell you right now, that whoever it takes, whoever the individuals are
within the Department of Justice, these are maybe there will be multiple
people, but we will do whatever it takes the individuals that we have in the
Department of Justice to make sure that we do a proper review and a proper
analysis of this.
It's not
about the individuals. There will be a number of individuals that will be
involved in this I'm sure, from beginning to end.
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 ask
the Premier: Why did you wait until just yesterday to make this public that you
had provided direction to the Department of Justice to review this circumstance?
Why did you wait until yesterday?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, as
I said, I became aware of the conditions around the decision that was made by
the board of Nalcor on May 5. So we handed that over to the Department of
Justice for their review. Once that review is completed, what information that
we can actually legally put forward and make public, I'm hoping that we'll be
able to put all of it out there, Mr. Speaker. That's clearly where I'd like to
be on this.
Of
course, there's a process that we have to go through, so the timing on all of
this is and as the former premier would know, you often go to the Department
of Justice for advice on many issues. If we were to stand up in this particular
House and we were to say, okay, by the way we just called the Department of
Justice, we need an opinion on that, we would probably be doing that every day
as the former premier should know.
Right
now, the Department of Justice is doing a review. Whatever information we can
put out there, once that's completed, we will.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier is on the record as saying much earlier that he had a legal
opinion on this that guided the decisions that were made.
Will you
table that legal opinion here in the House?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Any
legal opinions that I would have received so far are still with the Department
of Justice right now for their analysis. I have not received anything at all
from a legal opinion prior to May 5. That work is ongoing now with the
Department of Justice.
As
information becomes available to them, they will do their analysis. Then we'll
see what information, what options we have available to us once the review is
completed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier is on the record as publicly saying he had a legal opinion which led to
the decision of paying the severance. You said we have a legal opinion. It was
your words, Premier.
Where is
that legal opinion? Will you table that here in the House?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
glad, actually, to clarify this and speak to this and answer this question. The
legal opinions, based on the severance that was paid out to the former CEO, are
with Nalcor. That is the legal opinion, the advice that was given to them to
make their decision that they eventually used to create the agreement and the
severance package that was put forward to Mr. Martin.
The
legal opinions that the former premier is talking about are in possession of
Nalcor. It is their opinion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier is on the record as saying that there was a legal opinion that based the
decision for providing the severance.
Did you
actually see the legal opinion, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, I
have not seen any legal opinion or advice that was given to Nalcor. That is not
something that I would be privy to. That was given to Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So the Premier says it was a
legal opinion at Nalcor, which we heard coming into the House today that Nalcor
doesn't have a legal opinion. He says it was part of his decision-making
process.
How
could you say you used a legal opinion as part of your own decision-making
process when you're saying now you never saw a legal opinion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I'm going to try and clarify this for the former premier again. The decision
around severance was made with the board of directors of Nalcor. Let's be very
clear. The board of directors made the decision on the severance with the former
CEO.
The
former premier makes reference to an opinion that was given. He's saying there
was no opinion given. Clearly, if he checked for the record, there was an
opinion given. There was a verbal opinion that was given to the board of Nalcor.
That's been clarified, as I understand it to be. That is not an opinion that was
given to me; neither should it be as Premier of the province. The people
responsible for the CEO of Nalcor are indeed the board of directors of Nalcor.
It was there opinion and their decision.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I will ask Members again for their respect. I'm fully expecting there will be no
heckling during question and answer period.
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to ask the Premier again because this is very important. He spoke publicly and
said that the decision on severance, and his position, was related directly to a
legal opinion. Now he is saying today that he never saw the legal opinion. There
wasn't actually a written legal opinion. It was a verbal opinion.
Premier,
can you clarify that? Are you saying decisions were made based on verbal advice,
not an opinion, when you publicly said you had a legal opinion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let's
clarify. The opinions given based on the severance and the decisions made based
on the severance of the former CEO were given not to me; it was given to the
board of directors of Nalcor. They own the contract. They held the contract with
the former CEO.
To
clarify this for the former premier, any legal advice, any legal opinions were
given to the board of directors of Nalcor. That was advice and opinion not given
to me, but given to the board of Nalcor. It was based on the advice and the
opinions that they were given, I understand. That is how they made their
decision.
We now
have the Department of Justice involved with government, our own officials in
the Department of Justice to see what options we have. They will review that.
They will do their own analysis of that, then a decision can be made on what
options we have available to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
Premier is saying he was informed of a legal opinion. Well, tell us this
Premier: Who provided that opinion directly to you?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On May
5, there was information that was given to me about how the decision was made.
I've now turned that over to the Department of Justice for their review. Once
their analysis is completed, we will know what options we have available to us.
Then we will be in the position, I am hoping, that all of this information,
based on what transpired between April 20 and May 5, this is information that,
based on the opinions we get from the Department of Justice, we're hoping to get
as much of this out there in the public realm as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll try
this again.
Who
shared the opinion with you, Premier?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Who
shared the opinion with me? Mr. Speaker, the opinion was not shared with me.
What has happened here is the board of directors of Nalcor, who hold the
contract, they went out, they got legal advice on the decision they had made. It
was exclusively their decision to actually terminate the former CEO without
cause.
That
decision rests with the board of directors at Nalcor. We now have this
information, which is currently under review with the officials of the
Department of Justice within government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So, the
Premier never saw a legal opinion. He somehow knows there is one, but no one
told him or shared it with him. It wasn't shared with him at all. He repeated
several times yesterday that there was a legal opinion.
How did
you even know there was a legal opinion if nobody shared it with you, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
think the whole province knows that there was an opinion. If the former premier
just listened to the media outlets, there was an opinion that was just as a
matter of fact, I think it was the officials at Nalcor that just told the people
of the province that there was a verbal opinion they had sought. So it's very
clear this is a decision that was made by Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the Premier of the province addressed the people of the province in the media
and said there was a legal opinion. Repeated it several times, repeated it
yesterday. Now today he's telling us he's not aware of the legal opinion. He's
going by what was in the media, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely shameful, the Premier of
the province stands before the people and shares an opinion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What is
actually shameful here is we have the former premier here playing politics with
this. I clearly said yesterday, yes, there was an opinion that was given to the
board of directors at Nalcor. I've always stated that the opinion was given to
the board of directors at Nalcor. It wasn't given to me as Premier. It was
advice that was given to the board of directors the former board of directors
at Nalcor.
So that
opinion, that advice, squarely to them, they made their decisions based on that.
The next review, next legal opinion based on this will be done with the
officials within our own department. Once that analysis, that review is
completed, we will then know what options we have available to us.
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 clarify this and make a full understanding. Were you informed what the
legal opinion was? Were you informed of that?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, as I said
earlier, so many times today, the opinion given legally, the advice was given to
the board of directors, so I was not informed. The legal advice that was given
to the board of directors at Nalcor, that was advice that was given to them.
Based on
that, they made their decision. Based on that decision, now we're going to do
our own review within the Department of Justice here representing the people of
our province. That's the step that we are at today. The opinions given were
given to the board of directors at Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we know there's a resolution of the board regarding the termination of
the former CEO. Will you table that resolution here in the House of Assembly?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
information that we have available to us the former premier says he knows it
was a resolution. Maybe he's got a copy of it. But whatever information we have
right now is with the Department of Justice. Once they have done their review
and their analysis, all of this information that we can put out there
publically, legally, we are more than willing to do it.
There is
no reason I would anticipate that a resolution the board of directors is not
something that can be made public, but that is really a decision that I will
take the advice from our own Department of Justice. Clearly, I think this is
something that can be done. I have really no issue with it, but we want to make
sure that we complete the review and the analysis from the Department of Justice
before any of this information is released.
I can
tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, the more information that we can put out there
on this, that is where I want to be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So,
Premier, will you table all of that information in the House here this
afternoon?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
clearly I have to say, that is one of the worst questions I have ever heard this
former premier say. After all we've been through here right now, what he's
expecting me to do is table information without even going through a process
that we would go through maybe the former premier is used to interfering with
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy. Maybe that's what he's used to
doing when he sat in this chair, but I can tell you right now, I will respect
the process of the individuals that are involved. And it's when we get through
that process, when the analysis is completed, I will be very happy to put to the
people of this province any information that can be made public. I'm hoping that
it can be all made public, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, $1.4 million is
significant dollars to oversee, I'd say to the Premier.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier claims he had no involvement or knowledge of the terms of
Mr. Martin's departure. So I ask the Premier: Did you meet with, or have any
discussions with members of the Nalcor board to discuss his actual departure?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I met a
number of times with the former chair of Nalcor. I never met really with the
board of directors at Nalcor. That meeting never happened, but it was not
related specifically to a contract or a severance agreement. There was no
information that was shared with me about a draft severance or any of the
details. That information, I became aware of on May 5, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: Did you have any discussions with the board on the
future employment of Mr. Martin?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
No, Mr. Speaker, I never had
any discussions with the board of Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Just to be clear, Premier,
did you have any discussions with the board on the future employment of Mr.
Martin?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the question the Member opposite asked is about discussions with the board of
Nalcor about the future employment of Mr. Martin. No, I did not have any
discussions with the board.
We had
the meeting on Tuesday night with Mr. Martin. There were no members of the board
present at that meeting. The decision was made on the future of Mr. Martin. He
made that decision himself when he made a decision to step aside. The severance
package was then determined by the outgoing the former board of Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What involvement did she have
in this matter, and when did she become aware of the details of the termination
agreement for Mr. Martin?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was
pleased to be involved in the meetings with Mr. Martin on April 17 and again on
April 19. I was with the Premier when we were having the discussions with Mr.
Martin when he decided to step down on the 20th of April.
As has
been determined and discussed here this afternoon, the decisions around the
contract of Mr. Martin rest with the board of directors. The board of directors
made the determination.
I think
his final question was on the contract agreement. I did not see anything until I
returned from Houston on May 9.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Premier has told us that he became aware on April 21 of the Nalcor board's
decision to terminate Mr. Martin without cause.
I ask
the Premier: Why did he not immediately inform the public of the discrepancy
between Nalcor's announcement and that of the CEO.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
decision by the board of directors of Nalcor, when I became aware of that, they
had already had their decision made. So that was on April 20, I think it was, I
say to the Member opposite.
The
decision was we had done our press releases and the former CEO had already
spoken to the public as well. It was after that the board had made their
decision. It was really nothing for me to report there. I had not seen any of
the details about the impact that would have on any severance agreement until
May 5.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Why
didn't he immediately get the Department of Justice involved then?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
conditions in the contract with the former CEO of Nalcor squarely, as I said,
rest with the board of directors of Nalcor. They had made their decision. I was
not aware of the terms and the conditions of the agreement that was reached with
the former CEO. Therefore the impact, the details around the nearly $1.4 million
severance was made public around May 4 and the conditions around the agreement,
how that was approached, I became aware of on May 5.
As I
said, Mr. Speaker, so many times today that is now with the officials at the
Department of Justice and they are now doing their analysis and review, and we
look forward to seeing what options we have on behalf of government in the
coming days.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier can request through a resolution of the House for the Auditor General to
investigate the matter of the outgoing CEO's severance.
I ask
the Premier: Will he bring a resolution to this House of Assembly to ask the
Auditor General to investigate the full circumstances of Mr. Martin's departure
from Nalcor and the board's conduct in approving severance and bonus payments?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
the prudent thing to do and the responsible thing to do right now is to let the
officials at the Department of Justice do their work. They will do their review.
They will do their analysis of the information that they have access to. And
based on that review and that analysis, then we will see what options that we
have available to us.
The AG
might be one of those options. There might clearly be some other options that
are available to us. But I think the prudent, responsible thing to do, on behalf
of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is to let this process unfold. Once
it's completed, then we will know what options we have available to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
Premier: On such an important issue, why will he not go directly to the Auditor
General when this is such a crucial issue for the people of the province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said, I think the responsible and the prudent thing to do is to let the
Department of Justice going directly there right now and circumventing a
process that has already been started and already established, it is probably
best in all our interests to let the Department of Justice complete the work and
the task that they've been asked and assigned to do.
I'm not
expecting this to take a long, long time. Then, once that work is completed, we
will know. We will have a good understanding of what options that we have
available to us. One of them might very well be the AG. If that's the best
option that we see available to us, well that's the option that we will take.
But first of all, clearly there is a process started, there's a process that we
will let unfold and when that process is completed, we will then be in the
position to make the best decision based on the options that we have available
to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has
full legislative power to ask the Auditor General to intervene and, according to
the Premier, the Department of Justice has been reviewing the issue of severance
paid to former CEO Martin for three weeks now. Has the Premier received any
report or partial report of their findings?
I ask
the Premier: When does he expect this review to be finished?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A report
is really something that will be finalized at some point, where the Department
of Justice will do the due diligence that they see in a very responsible fashion
and make sure they do the review that's required and that we have asked them to
do. So to put a timeline, a date on that would not be responsible, but I don't
anticipate this to be a long review, Mr. Speaker.
I look
forward to getting this completed as well on behalf of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. We need to know what options we have available to us so that we
can then make the informed decision that's required in the best interests of the
people of our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for Question Period has
expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to move the
following resolution: a resolution respecting the appointment of members of the
Independent Appointments Commission.
Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:
WHEREAS subsection 6(3) of the
Independent Appointments Commission Act provides that five members
are to be appointed to an Independent Appointments Commission by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly; and
WHEREAS subsection 6(4) of the act provides that the
Lieutenant Governor in Council designate one of the members of the commission to
be chairperson;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following persons be
appointed members of the Independent Appointments Commission: Mr. Clyde K.
Wells, chairperson; Ms. Zita Cobb; Ms. Shannie Duff; Mr. Philip R. Earle and Mr.
Derek Young.
Mr. Speaker, I further give notice pursuant to Standing
Order 11 that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., tomorrow, Thursday.
Pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this
House do not adjourn at 10 p.m., tomorrow, May 26.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
a motion that the House do not adjourn tomorrow at 5:30.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CLERK (Ms. Barnes):
We don't vote
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
We don't vote on sorry
about that.
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
I tried to help you out
there, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An To Amend The
Co-operative Act, Bill 30.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Labour Standards Act, Bill 31.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
government has once again cut the libraries budget, forcing the closure of 54
libraries; and
WHEREAS
libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially for those with
little access to government services where they offer learning opportunities and
computer access; and
WHEREAS
libraries and librarians are critical in efforts to improve the province's
literacy levels which are among the lowest in Canada; and
WHEREAS
already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over the operation
and cost of libraries;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work on a
long-term plan to strengthen the library system.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Once
again, Mr. Speaker, I stand with this petition which is dealing with one of the
most onerous pieces of the terrible Budget
2016.
People
have been protesting, not just the people in the communities where the libraries
are closing but people here on the Avalon Peninsula. Again, the petition I have
today is from people in St. John's, really concerned that we do not have
equality in this province for people in urban centres along with people in rural
centres. They are disturbed that this government is just completely ignoring the
needs of our people both on a community level and as individuals.
We have
said over and over that we have terrible literacy levels in this province. We
used to say it was the older generation only, where they didn't have
opportunities in rural Newfoundland over the years. It was older people, but
that's not the case. We have poor literacy levels in young adults as well. This
government once again continues to ignore.
Now
today they're priding themselves because they were forced to make changes to one
aspect of the budget. We're already getting emails and phone calls, I am, from
people saying, well, if we put enough pressure on will they change something
else? One of the things people want changed is the decision on the libraries.
Maybe they should think about this as well, Mr. Speaker, with the wonderful
pocket of money they say they are getting from the federal government, which I
can't even see is going to cover the change they've made to the levy. I'm dying
to hear how they've done the math on that one.
Mr.
Speaker, I will continue to stand here on this floor and speak for people who do
not want their libraries closed because it's a loss to the community. It's a
loss to people, seniors in particular. They say they're worried about seniors.
Well, seniors need their libraries in order to go and use computers, to gain the
services that they have to gain from government through computers.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Fogo
Island Cape Freels.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the decision has been made to close the Hare Bay/Dover medical clinic; and
WHEREAS
the transfer of medical services will negatively affect our residents; and
WHEREAS
neighbouring medical facilities will be overcrowded; and
WHEREAS
this overcrowding and transferring of medical services will cost government more
money than what keeping the existing clinic open would cost;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge the government to reverse the decision to close the Hare
Bay/Dover medical clinic.
Mr.
Speaker, this is signed by over 1,050 people of the Hare Bay/Dover area
affecting their clinic and they wanted me to make this petition here today.
Hopefully we can work with these to resolve this dilemma.
Thank
you very much, 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.
A
petition 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
libraries promote literacy and provide access to information for all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and
WHEREAS
communities in our province depend on libraries to increase their knowledge and
further their opportunities; and
WHEREAS
the closures of libraries in the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune,
Newfoundland and Labrador, was a result of the Liberal budget of 2016; and
WHEREAS
the residents of this district will now have to travel over an hour to access a
library;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to immediately reverse the closure of the
libraries in Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, certainly the constituents of my district would support the
reinstatement of libraries all across this province because the only place
they're closing is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, imagine that, a
Liberal government tearing the life out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador yet
again.
Let's
talk about they say it's all about regionalization. Let's talk about we're
using the context of my district and I'm sure if the Members opposite were able
to get up and speak to theirs, they would oppose their decisions. One community
out of 22 will be served by their regionalization plan, Mr. Speaker just one.
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 Cartwright L'Anse au Clair to bring forward her
motion.
The hon.
the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand today. I introduced a motion on Tuesday that would be debated
here this afternoon and I'll take the next 15 minutes to speak to the motion.
BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the government's proposal to provide the
Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit, a refundable tax credit for
low-income seniors, which this year is providing some 42,000 seniors in our
province with payments of up to $971 the highest amount ever.
My
district, the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, not unlike the rest of
the province, but perhaps in rural areas, coastal Labrador for sure, we have an
aging population that I think it's more pronounced in rural areas. I believe
we're saying by 2025, one in every four people in the province will be a senior,
and I'm sure where I live that's going to be higher than that one in four. So
anything that we can do to support the seniors in our province who we all know
live on low income, most of them, Old Age Security, maybe a tiny bit of Canada
Pension.
Where I
make my home in the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair people who have
historically always earned a living from the fishery, their Canada Pension might
only be $17 or $18 because they didn't work and they didn't pay into that. So
very low income, and we recognize again, in rural parts, the high costs of goods
and services, the high cost of moving about to see a specialist.
So
anything that we can do, Mr. Speaker, to support these seniors, we're in fact
going to do that. Because who are these seniors? The 30 of us over here on this
side, they're our family, they're our parents, and they're our grandparents.
Anything we can do to support those who blazed a trail for us, we owe such a
great deal of gratitude to our seniors.
My
grandfather, Ben Powell I was raised by my grandparents, and I say that
proudly again and again in this House, because they instilled values and morals
in me that I would like to think helped guide and influence the decisions I make
every single day. I would listen to stories from them of what life was like back
in the '30s and the '40s and the '50s, and when people say we're going backwards
or we haven't progressed, I think to those stories and I think we have come a
long way, Mr. Speaker.
So those
are just some of the reasons why the well-being of seniors in Newfoundland and
Labrador are paramount in any considerations that our government makes. Mr.
Speaker, we've been hearing a lot about the budget that was brought down on
April 14. Even though we're part of a government that brought down the budget we
haven't been shy in saying it was a terrible budget.
There
were many, many difficult choices that had to be made, Mr. Speaker, with the
budget. Do we like it? Were we happy to make those decisions? Absolutely not,
because the people that are impacted by this, they are also our family, they are
our friends, they are our communities. We are also, all of us here, representing
districts in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, when you're faced with a $2.7 billion debt and I was reflecting on
this a little bit as I thought about the PMR; what would happen to those seniors
had the province, teetering on bankruptcy, gone bankrupt, if another province
had taken over the affairs of this province, or the Government of Canada?
Mr.
Speaker, this budget will be infusing $8.48 billion into the provincial economy.
Entwined in that $8.48 billion is a number of very rewarding things for seniors
that once the cheques and the installments start rolling out, some of them
starting with a double payment in October, I know they're going to be well
received.
Mr.
Speaker, there are now more people in Canada over the age of 65 than there are
under the age of 15, so that just reiterates what I've been saying. We certainly
have aging demographics at play here in a very big way. Our province,
Newfoundland and Labrador's population, is rapidly aging. By 2036 that's just
one generation from now our province is expected to have the highest
percentage of seniors in the country at 31 per cent; one in four individuals,
Mr. Speaker, and many that live on a low income.
That's
why special consideration and care was taken. When the budget was coming down,
when some harsh measures, some that are very temporary, had to be made in order
to save Newfoundland and Labrador from this atrocious financial mess that it was
left in, there was special care given for this group, Mr. Speaker.
Our
government, one of the platforms that we ran on was the Office of the Seniors'
Advocate, and that's being carried through because we've long recognized the
importance of taking care of seniors.
Mr.
Speaker, back in 2014, we hosted a number of engagement sessions soliciting
feedback from our province's seniors and other stakeholders. Some of the
decisions that we have made have been based on the information that we got at
those sessions. I, myself, like many of my colleagues, went throughout my
district and I held meetings sometimes in the afternoon, sometimes in the
evening. The things we heard from seniors, some of the difficult choices they
have to make in the winter when it's more expensive to heat their homes and
things like that, we listened. This feedback has guided some of the choices that
were made in the budget.
Mr.
Speaker, we proposed the enactment of the Office of the Seniors' Advocate when
we were in Opposition, and we carried through on that. We will be carrying
through. We felt very strongly that our province's seniors, a large and dynamic
segment of our population, deserved an independent voice speaking on their
behalf in the Legislature.
Budget 2016,
I'm very happy to say, contained the funds necessary to establishing this
office. So we are fully committed to ensuring our seniors have a dedicated
statutory officer, similar to the Auditor General. That office will be listening
to seniors of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We
recognize, Mr. Speaker, that seniors have diverse care needs. Seniors face many,
many challenges as they get along the road of life. A seniors' advocate is an on
the ground resource for seniors. It would be ideally placed within government
that would help us respond quickly to evolving needs and issues.
Mr.
Speaker, by putting in an office like this, once again we are saying to seniors
there will be no political interference. There are some things where politics
should not play a role. When it comes to caring for our aging population, that's
certainly one place where the health and well-being of seniors need to trump
everything else.
I was
very pleased to see this budget allocate $300,000 for the Seniors' Resource
Centre to enhance its referral and information system. This will allow us to
deliver services to seniors more efficiently and effectively.
Budget 2016,
Mr. Speaker, will dedicate $300,000 for the provision of age-friendly
transportation services, which addresses a critical need for seniors with
mobility issues.
Mr.
Speaker, we get up and we run all day long in here, and we run from meeting to
meeting. A lot of times we take our health for granted and we're not grateful
and thankful for it. When you see a senior who's trying to manoeuvre in a
wheelchair or a cane and they're going slow, those are the people who understand
the need for friendly transportation services.
Mr.
Speaker, this $300,000 will address critical needs for seniors with mobility
issues. There is money allocated to support the continued development of
age-friendly communities throughout our province. This is a very important
initiative that is intended to address the demographic shift as more and more of
our citizens leave the workforce and retire. That's what's happening, Mr.
Speaker.
In my
district as I go around and knock on doors, which I've done two or three times
now, you see many, many more people with grey hair or no hair than you do
younger people because of the aging demographics. That's why it's important, Mr.
Speaker, that we focus on
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'm getting a little bit of
heckling here, Mr. Speaker, from my own side because we have a few here with
grey hair and no hair. Fortunately, they are still healthy and well. I don't
think they need age-friendly transportation or they have mobility issues.
That's
why, Mr. Speaker, we need to focus on this group and the special needs here.
This is a very important initiative that is intended to address the demographic
shift as more and more of our citizens leave the workforce and retire. Life can
be difficult for a senior, especially if they don't have a pension from an
employer or retirement savings of their own.
I think
again to my district. For 23 years I worked as a career and employment
counsellor. I was fortunate on the Coast of Labrador to oversee five offices in
that region. Like many of the offices in rural parts, what we did often was we
went beyond our mandate. Many times it was not uncommon to see seniors coming in
with mail or wanting something interpreted, wanting help with forms because they
maybe had no family living around them. It maybe was only the Mr. and Mrs. in
the home or maybe a widowed person living alone. We often heard the stories from
them of the difficulty of balancing the books, juggling on their low income.
Although
Budget 2016 asked many Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians to pay more taxes, Mr. Speaker, we felt it would simply be too
much to ask our low-income seniors who already face many challenges related to
living on a fixed income. We didn't want to do that, Mr. Speaker. We wanted to
find a way to be creative and to help those seniors.
That's
why Budget 2016 allocated an
additional $12.7 million an additional, Mr. Speaker to enhance the existing
seniors' benefit because we recognize that we have an obligation as a government
to protect these individuals. Although things are very tough right now in this
province we had a whole lot of good news today, and I'll speak about that in a
minute. Even in this time of tight fiscal restraint, Mr. Speaker, we recognize
that we have a moral and an ethical obligation to do what we can to support this
important group in our population.
Eligible
seniors; I just think this is a wonderful part of this, Mr. Speaker, in that
eligible seniors don't have to fill out complicated paperwork or navigate
through any additional red tape. Again, going back to my 23 years of working in
a small coastal community, many times, even at my house at 10 or 11 o'clock at
night, somebody would come to my door because they knew they could. I opened my
door and I embraced can you help me with this form? Especially, Mr. Speaker,
if it involved them receiving some kind of financial benefit. They were more
stressed because they were worried they might fill it out incorrectly and they
may not get the full amount of money they were entitled to.
Often,
Mr. Speaker, when I've helped people with federal applications, we found out
that they, in fact, were not getting their right amount of money. I'm thinking
in particular of a senior couple in Cartwright who were struggling financially.
When I sat down with them I saw they were not getting their right amount of
money and I helped them. They think I'm the best thing since sliced bread. When
all I really did, Mr. Speaker, was help them get access to what they were
rightfully entitled to.
I think
any seniors who are watching today, Mr. Speaker, I want them to not be stressed
but to know that they will not have to fill out any paperwork because if they
have filed a tax return for the year of 2015, their income is automatically
assessed for eligibility. If they are determined to be eligible, they will
receive the supplement in quarterly installments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Not only does our budget seek
to take care of our province's vulnerable seniors, but this year's eligible
seniors will receive the highest amounts ever, Mr. Speaker, for the seniors'
benefit. Because we were listening to the seniors when they talked to us about
sometimes the difficult choices they had to make paying bills, feeding
themselves and heating their home on a very limited budget.
This
year, Mr. Speaker, up to 42,000 seniors will receive these benefits. Many of
these seniors will also receive the new Newfoundland and Labrador Income
Supplement. As we've heard today, Mr. Speaker, and I'll get to speak again at
the end when we close debate, but as we've heard today, they will now not have
to pay the levy. Fantastic news, thanks to our federal counterparts working with
our Premier and working with our Finance Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Three out of every four
people in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, now won't have to pay the
levy.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. DEMPSTER:
If your net income is $50,000
or less, you won't have to pay that temporary levy.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
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 up
today for those people just tuning in, this is a private Member's motion
brought forward today by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair. It's a
very interesting private Member's motion.
I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, when we saw it I, kind of, questioned it. I really wasn't
sure why they would bring forward this motion today. I began to do some research
and it sounded vaguely familiar. It sounded somewhat familiar, almost like a
motion that's been debated here in the House before. When we started to dig into
it and we looked into it we found out that, actually, this motion has been
debated in the House here before, word for word. This motion has been debated in
the House before. I'll just go back to it.
It's on
November 27, 2013, the then Member for Exploits, Mr. Clayton Forsey and I'm
reading from Hansard. His resolution was: BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House
supports the government's decision to provide the Newfoundland and Labrador
Seniors' Benefit, a refundable tax credit for low-income seniors which, this
year, is providing some
. now, here's what's really important, Mr. Speaker,
this is what the resolution says. Everyone look at the resolution that's there
before the House today, it says:
providing some 42,000 seniors the same
number that we're debating today in our Province with payments of up to $971
the highest amount ever.
It's the
same number that we're debating today. The same numbers we're debating today.
The Members opposite stand here and say look at the great increases we're doing
for seniors and it's the same resolution that was debated in the House here in
2013, Mr. Speaker.
MR. KENT:
The same resolution and same
numbers?
MR. P. DAVIS:
The same numbers, the same
resolution, the same number of seniors, the same amount that we debated in this
House in 2013, Mr. Speaker. Now there's more to the story because the trail of
this follows a little bit further.
As part
of Budget 2014 I'll tell you what our
government did. We increased it we did. In
Budget 2014 and I go back again, an excerpt from Hansard on March
27, 2014, when then minister of Finance, Minister Charlene Johnson said and I
quote: With this year's Budget, we are giving the fourth increase since 2003 to
the Seniors' Benefit. As a result, the maximum payment seniors will receive in
October 2014 will be the highest ever at $1,036, up from $971 in 2013.
So, Mr.
Speaker, not only is the $971 in today's resolution last year's numbers, it's
been increased since then. In 2014, the $40.4 million budget for the program is
more than five times higher than it was in 2013. About 42,000 seniors in our
province receive benefits under the program each year.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, for the people tuned in at home who are saying, what is this about? In
this year's budget, in Budget 2016 the
Liberal government opposite increased the Newfoundland and Labrador Low Income
Seniors' Benefit to provide additional support to the province's seniors. The
maximum amount under the Seniors' Benefit and this is from this year's budget
will increase from $1,063 to $1,313, an increase of $250. So that's an
increase from the 2014 numbers that we increased to this year. About 48,000
households is what the budget documents say 48,000 households. The resolution
says 42,000 seniors, but the budget document says 48,000 households will
benefits from these changes, including seniors who receive a higher benefit
amount or receive a partial Seniors' Benefit for the first time.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, this is an important matter. I really can't believe I'm sure the
Premier's office was hands on in this process. I don't lay this on the Member
for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair because I'm sure that it was with guidance from
the Premier's office that she was given this resolution to do today.
It
sounds to me like from her comments in her 15 minutes when she spoke that
she wasn't aware that this motion was the same resolution brought to the House
previously. It almost sounds like the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair
was maybe set up by her own people. Maybe it was just an error, but why would
they put her on her feet in the House of Assembly and embarrass her like that is
beyond me.
I don't
hold her accountable for this, Mr. Speaker. I don't. I don't. I think it's
shameful what she was put up to do today, to stand here in her place and bring
forward a resolution identical except for one word to what was brought here
in the House in November 27, 2013 by the then private member, Mr. Clayton
Forsey, PC member for Exploits at the time.
Mr.
Speaker, this raises some serious problems because we heard in Question Period
today I asked the Premier questions today. And I'll stay on topic, Mr.
Speaker, but the topic is and the problem with this motion is we asked questions
today and we saw changes in answers as Question Period went on.
We know
yesterday they lost a significant team member in the Premier's office as well.
I'm wondering, I can't help but think to myself, is this reflective of the
turmoil that is happening in government today? Is this because of that? Is this
because of the turmoil that is happening within their own caucus today?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
sure what that was about.
Mr.
Speaker, what we see here today now is turmoil that is happening and it is now
impacting the work of government. It is now impacting the work and emotion that
has come before the House here today. It draws the concern and I draw the
concern because if this is an error this is obviously an error that has taken
place.
If this
is an error that has taken place here today on a private Member's resolution,
then should we as people of the province also be concerned about other decisions
being made by government? If they put one of their own Members on her feet here
in the House of Assembly to bring forward a resolution that was a duplicate of
what was delivered here in the House in 2013 new government, brand new
government over there, been in less than six months with all these new ideas and
they brought back the identical resolution from 2013.
They
never had another private Member's resolution more important, more creative,
more unique, more pressing, part of their promises that they made during the
election campaign. They couldn't bring forward something new and different. They
brought a copy of a resolution from 2013, Mr. Speaker. That's what they did, and
they put the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair to deliver it on their
behalf.
MR. KENT:
They didn't update the
numbers?
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's what happened. They
didn't update the numbers. They didn't update the numbers from 2014. They didn't
update the numbers from 2013. So 2013, there was a resolution brought here to
the House; the same resolution, 2014 which was an update by the way, Mr.
Speaker. It was an update in 2013. There was an update again in 2014 by the
minister of Finance of the day, Minister Johnson and brought an increase then
even higher. Then as a result, there was the fourth increase in 2014 since 2003.
Granted,
credit to them, they did increase it again in 2016. Good for them, but they
couldn't even bring the right motion to the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker,
something that should be vetted and carefully thought out and carefully planned
and reviewed and so on. As soon as we looked at it, we said there's a problem
with this.
With all
the staff that the Premier's office has, with all the staff the government
caucus has, with all the officials in government in the Department of Finance,
with all the people who work in government and work with them as a government,
Mr. Speaker, nobody picked this up; or, if they did, they neglected to tell the
Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
Now, I
expect the seconder on this was the Member for Stephenville Port au Port. I
believe it was, and I'm sure he'll speak on it this afternoon. I hope now that
while I'm speaking on my time, because he got about six minutes left, that he'll
have an opportunity to review this and maybe say to his caucus or to the
Premier's office, who no doubt, at the very least would have approved and vetted
this particular motion that this was the right thing.
They're
going to have a few minutes, but I'm going to help them out, Mr. Speaker. I'm
going to help them out.
MR. KENT:
They're working fast, though.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, they're working hard,
and we'll give them time. I'll use my time. I'm not going to sit down short and
abruptly so that they're not ready. I'll continue to speak. I'll use my time so
they have time to prepare on what they're going to do here.
MR. KENT:
Write an amendment.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, they're probably writing
an amendment, because it's wrong, it's simply wrong. There's no way we can
support a resolution here in the House Members opposite can't support a
resolution in the House when they know the information is wrong. You can't do
it.
You
can't support your own resolution when you know the information is incorrect and
inaccurate, because it goes from $971 is what's on the resolution, when we know
today as a result of the budget documents unless the budget documents are
wrong it's increasing from $1,063 to $1,313, an increase of $250. That's what
the budget documents say, and the budget documents say 48,000 households instead
of 42,000.
So, Mr.
Speaker, that's the problem with this resolution. That's the problem with this.
There's no way people in the House can support it. It's really unfortunate that
we have a Private Members' Day utilized on a regurgitation of a motion that we
brought forward, the Member for Exploits brought forward November 27, 2013, and
now they've put up their own Member.
Now, we
know they have a lot of pressure over there, Mr. Speaker, we know that. There's
a tremendous amount of pressure on government today. We're quite aware of that.
We're copied on much of the information and emails and messages that are being
communicated with the Members opposite.
We know
they've gotten up, we saw today, on a petition. Their own Members are
petitioning against their own government openly here in the House of Assembly.
We know Members opposite are speaking privately, or speaking publicly and
privately about changes that should be made. They're lobbying for changes to the
budget, but to actually come in here in the House and present a motion that is
essentially a duplicate, except for one word, a duplicate of what was brought by
the PC Member in 2013.
I think
it's shameful and embarrassing for the Members opposite. An apology should go to
the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair by whoever is responsible to put her
up on this, set her up on this, or make her stand and talk on this. I think
she's owed an apology. I anticipate the Member for Stephenville Port au Port
is going to speak to it as well. I believe that he is owed an apology as well.
Mr.
Speaker, we're going to do him a favour today. We're going to propose an
amendment to correct their information. We're going to do an amendment to
correct their information. What I'm going to propose I believe is going to
correct this.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl North, that the resolution be amended by
deleting the number 42,000 that's in the current resolution and be substituted
with the number 48,000.
We'll
make this simple for them, Mr. Speaker, so that it matches with what should have
been brought to the House here today.
Further,
by deleting the figure $971 and substitute a figure of $1,313, which would
reflect a $250 increase. And by adding after the word ever a comma and the
following words so this would be an addition at the end of the resolution.
I'll
read it all, Mr. Speaker, momentarily so we're all clear on what the amendment
actually is, but condemns the government's proposal to remove the home heating
rebate and the HST rebate while imposing tax and fee increases that will leave
seniors worse off.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll read the resolution as amended. BE IT RESOLVED that this hon.
House supports the government's proposal to provide the Newfoundland and
Labrador Seniors' Benefit a refundable tax credit for low income seniors, which
this year is providing some 48,000 seniors in our province with payments of up
to $1,313, the highest amount ever, but condemns the government's proposal to
remove the home heating rebate and the HST rebate while imposing tax and fee
increases that will leave seniors worse off.
I can
table that for Members here in the House, Mr. Speaker. I would anticipate that
you may want to take a recess, but if I can add just before I finish up, Mr.
Speaker. If I may, with your indulgence, just make a couple of comments.
We know
Members are rising on their feet bringing petitions. They're speaking publicly
and asking for changes. We know when it comes to seniors and this particular
resolution, that one of the problems facing seniors is the home heating rebate
and also the HST rebate which has been removed by the government opposite, which
really puts seniors in a less of a position or a worse position. Therefore,
we're adding that extra segment and part of the resolution saying that we
condemn the government's proposal to remove the home heating rebate and HST
rebate while imposing tax fees and increases. We all know about the tax and fee
increases leaving seniors worse off.
I table
that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker will take a short recess to review the amendment.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Two
issues I wish to deal with. First of all, there was an interruption from a
Member on the government side while the Opposition Leader was speaking. I've
mentioned on several occasions in this House that the Member identified to speak
should be respected uninterrupted. So I remind the Member that it's not going to
be tolerated that Members identified to speak be interrupted.
The
amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is out of order as it
contains a provision that is beyond the scope of the clause that it is intended
to amend. As well, O'Brien and Bosc goes on to say that an amendment must be
relevant to the clause that it proposes to amend.
There
are several instances within O'Brien and Bosc that would cause this amendment to
be out of order. On page 533 is another. An amendment is out of order if it
deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope or introduces
a new proposition.
So the
amendment, as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, is out of order.
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When you
rose and ruled, I still had some time on the clock but I know the clock
MR. SPEAKER:
I believe there are 23
seconds.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, Sir.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Twenty-eight seconds.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Twenty-eight seconds.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sorry, 28 seconds.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Am I entitled to that?
MR. SPEAKER:
You are indeed.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, what we have here before the House today, I want to reiterate was most
unfortunate for the Liberal Party, the Liberal caucus to put one of their one
Members up. I think it speaks to the turmoil that is underway in the government
with their own caucus to have such a motion come forward, that is a duplicate of
what was brought forward in 2013. They didn't even change the numbers from the
budget numbers in 2013 to reflect their own.
According to the motion today, they are reducing the benefit to seniors, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
certainly an honour for me to stand in this House of Assembly again today, as it
is every time that I stand, to represent the people who elected me last year and
to speak on their behalf.
Certainly the intent of what we came here was to discuss the impacts and the
benefits that seniors will accrue through
Budget 2016. I'm going to do something today, Mr. Speaker, that the Members
opposite continuously refuse to do day in and day out, and that's accept
responsibility, that this was based on a human error of transmission. The Member
opposite is completely right that we did not intend for this version to be
tabled yesterday and I'm going to say to the Members opposite that we will be
proposing an amendment to reflect the new numbers.
It is
interesting, Mr. Speaker, we saw the righteous indignation of the Leader of the
Official Opposition who claimed that we didn't know what we were doing and this
side was in disarray, yet their own motions are never in order, Mr. Speaker.
We saw
last week with Bill 1, they were up to seven or eight proposed amendments that
they couldn't even get in order, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Members opposite it
is time to accept responsibility for what they've done, but today
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
it is squarely in my lap,
Mr. Speaker, and I say the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair does bear no
responsibility for this and we will be tabling a proposed motion as follows:
I move,
seconded by the hon. Member for St. George's Humber, that the resolution be
amended by deleting the number 42,000 seniors and replacing it with the words
45,000 senior households, and further deleting the number $971 and replacing
it with the number $1,313.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker will take a few moments to review this amendment to determine whether or
not it's in order.
MS. MICHAEL:
A point of order, Mr. Speaker
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, it's been our
understanding in our caucus that a private Member's motion may only have one
amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
No, that's not correct, I say
to the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi. We can only deal with one
amendment at a time, but this previous amendment was ruled out of order, so we
are able to accept the second amendment.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker has reviewed the
proposed amendment by the Member for Placentia West Bellevue and the amendment
is in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me pleasure to rise again and speak to the amended motion now that we will
debate. I'd just like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that as I said before, there
was a fair degree and amount of righteous indignation thrown across the way
towards the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair. I want to say, the Member
for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair is one of the hardest working Members of this
House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
She advocates veraciously for
her constituents and for the people of Labrador. Certainly, I don't think any of
this should be put on her.
This
mistake here, Mr. Speaker, it cost 10 cents to run a photocopy, which is more
than I can say for the mistakes of the previous government which cost hundreds
of millions of dollars, not the least of which would be Humber Valley Paving.
They went right on through that. They had ferries over in Romania that cost all
kinds of money in tariffs that could have been built down in Marystown, Mr.
Speaker.
So there
are all kinds of mistakes that people make, but I think the measure of any
Member and the measure of any man or woman is admitting to them when you make
one. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this was pure human error. I think it's
absolutely atrocious that the Members opposite chose to take their time today on
the intent of this motion, which was to promote the well-being of seniors, to
take it, to politicize it to the point where they did today.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not going to spend any more time debating the politics of the
situation. I want to talk about the measures that seniors will benefit from in
this budget. Since the budget as I've said many times in this House, Mr.
Speaker, I've been out in my district at events and in meetings with my
constituents and talking to them, and there is a certain degree of people out
there who are asking questions about, how will this impact me.
I think
if anyone can look at this budget in its entirety, and I think looking at it in
its entirety is important. I think it's important and noteworthy to reference
that this is probably the first Question Period today where we didn't hear a
question on the levy.
We know
the Members opposite don't want to talk about the good relationship we have with
our federal partners. They delivered, in terms of bringing enhanced aid to
Newfoundland and Labrador, so that this government could hold true to its
commitment to ensure the levy was temporary. We know they don't want to talk
about that, Mr. Speaker, and they obviously don't want to talk about the
measures that seniors will have in this budget.
If you
look at the different measures we're bringing forward, the Enhanced Seniors'
Benefit will give over $250 a year to seniors. I take an example, Mr. Speaker,
of a senior couple. This would apply to many seniors living in my district. I
have a rural district of some 45 communities. A senior couple making $26,000
would avail of the Enhanced Seniors' Benefit by $250, and the Income Supplement
of $510. These certainly are net benefits to what they would be receiving now,
because we believe it's important that seniors have the respect and the supports
they need.
The
well-being of seniors for us is not a token thing. It's very important, which is
why there's money in this budget for a seniors' advocate, which is something the
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune calls a luxury. She can call it a luxury,
but Members on this side of the House consider it something that's important and
vital. That's why the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development has
been such a strong advocate for seniors in this province, and that's why we're
moving forward with plans for the seniors' advocate.
There
are other measures in this budget, Mr. Speaker, on top of the Enhanced Seniors'
Benefit. We have approximately $3.5 million to support the placement of select
individuals with enhanced care needs in a personal care home. As I've said, we
have the $250,000 investment for a new seniors' advocate office. We have
$300,000 for the Seniors' Resource Centre to enhance its information and
referral system. We have $300,000 for age-friendly transportation services. We
have a new director of Adult Protection to reduce risk to adults in need of
protection.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
We have $100,000 to support
continued development of age-friendly
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
ask the Member to try to keep his comments relevant to the motion put forward.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
motion put forward today is for us as a House to resolve ourselves to support
the Seniors' Benefit. I'll go back to that, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's
truly important. I encourage anyone with questions in my district to contact my
office and ask any questions that they so desire. It's really important that the
information gets out there.
A single
senior, Mr. Speaker, with an income of $16,000 would get the Enhanced Seniors'
Benefit by $250, as well as the Income Supplement. They would also benefit from
not only these changes but the federal changes as well.
There
are now more people in Canada over the age of 65 than there are under the age of
15. Our population in this province is rapidly aging. Newfoundland and Labrador
by 2036, just one generation from now, Mr. Speaker, our province is expected to
have the highest percentage of seniors in the country, at 31 per cent. That's
more than one in four individuals.
When we
talk about seniors, Mr. Speaker, I guess for me I'm certainly not within the
senior's age bracket, but I think of them as the people who helped build this
society to where we are today, the people who built communities and built
families. My grandmother alone had 13 children, my other one had six. Many
stories in this House can be shared of how many families were born in this
province as a result of the seniors who are currently living today.
In fact,
I was just in Monkstown this weekend, Mr. Speaker, and there was a man who
turned 105. They deserve our support. They deserve the recognition of the
importance of taking care of our seniors.
As a
government, we hosted a number of engagement sessions, including back in 2014
soliciting feedback from our province's seniors and other stakeholder groups.
The feedback we got in those Let's Connect sessions went on to form our
platform.
We are
still guided, Mr. Speaker, by that feedback today.
Budget 2016 contains a number of items that were created on the
basis of this grassroots engagement. As I said, we proposed the enactment of the
seniors' advocate and we are also bringing forward the Seniors' Benefit, which I
believe is a very positive step, Mr. Speaker. The enhancement of the Seniors'
Benefit, seniors will benefit. They will have more money in their pockets to
help them with the expenses they have. I think that is a tremendously good thing
that we can all be proud of.
This
motion today, the intent was not to divide the House, Mr. Speaker. It was that
we could all speak to the benefit of bringing forth measures to enhance the
lives of seniors and we could all speak collectively in support of them.
We are
truly committed to ensuring that our seniors have the supports they need.
Seniors have diverse care needs and face many challenges that can be enhanced by
the Seniors' Benefit. A seniors' advocate as an on-the-ground resource for
seniors is a good example of how that is a good resource for seniors.
We know
that life can be very difficult for a senior, Mr. Speaker. The example I just
gave of a single senior with $16,000 of income. When you look at that there are
12 months in a year. That's just a little over $1,000 a month. That's not a lot.
We have seniors out there trying to maintain their homes. Trying to make sure
they live comfortably at home in their communities for as long as they can. The
objective of the enhanced Seniors' Benefit is to ensure they can do that for as
long as they can.
I can
remember standing on a doorstep in Arnold's Cove actually during the election,
Mr. Speaker, and an elderly women saying to me: I want to be able to stay at
home as long as I can, independently, as much as I can. Those words stuck with
me because I had such a great admiration and a love of my own grandparents who
were people who had worked hard in their lives and who had come to a place in
their life where they needed as much help as they could get. I looked at that
senior and I said: Anything I can do, any help that I can provide, I certainly
will.
I think
of all the measures in this budget yes, there were very tough decisions, Mr.
Speaker, some of which can be debated, but I think the enhanced Seniors'
Benefit, in my mind, is something we can all agree on. It's a good thing for the
seniors in our province. It's certainly a good thing for many of our rural areas
that are populated with higher numbers of seniors than perhaps urban areas.
I think
it's really important, as Members of this Chamber, Members of this House, the
representatives of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we take the time to
acknowledge the fact that this particular measure contained within in our budget
is positive. It's going to help a great number of people, Mr. Speaker.
That's
why in Budget 2016 we have allocated
the additional $12.7 million to enhance the existing Seniors' Benefit because we
recognize, as a government, not only as a government but all Members of this
House, we have an obligation to those who came before us to try our very hardest
to ensure they are protected, to ensure they have the services they need.
Indeed, it is a tough challenge sometimes, particularly in rural areas, to
provide those services and to ensure there is a quality of service everywhere in
the province.
That's
why it is, I believe, a very good thing that we are going to be enhancing the
Seniors' Benefit to the point that not only will they get the one payment in the
fall, it will be spread over quarterly payments now. If you look at it on its
whole, eligible seniors no longer have to fill out complicated paperwork that
was the case in the past. We're reinvesting dollars into seniors, and as long as
they file their tax return for the year 2015, under the Seniors' Benefit, their
income is automatically assessed for eligibility. As I've said, if they are
determined to be eligible, then they will receive that in quarterly
installments.
As I
said, Mr. Speaker, I'm in full support of the amended resolution. As I've said
again, I believe the mover of this motion, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au
Clair, has done an outstanding job and outstanding work, not only in this
session of the House but in the last one, standing up for her constituents,
especially seniors. I support the motion 100 per cent. I believe it's important
that seniors are given the due they are owed by the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We will
be there. I told the seniors in my district that we will be there to help them
whenever we have to. As I've said, Mr. Speaker, those are the people that built
up Newfoundland and Labrador. They built our communities, our families. Those
are the people and the reasons why we can stand here today and enjoy the promise
that we do today.
I will
take my seat now, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What an
interesting day in the House of Assembly. It's never dull that's for sure, but
very interesting today.
The
previous speaker said that this was simply an error in transmission and that one
should admit when they make mistakes. Well, I'm glad that government is
acknowledging that they made a mistake today. Even in doing so, they can't help
but continue to play the blame game.
Mr.
Speaker, none of us are perfect and mistakes happen. It is important to
acknowledge them. A mistake was definitely made here today because we find
ourselves debating the original motion that we're debating this afternoon was
presented by Clayton Forsey in November 2013 with the exception of one word, as
the Leader of the Opposition pointed out earlier today.
We
attempted to amend the motion, albeit unsuccessfully. Government has now
proposed an amendment that's in order and we will vote both on the amendment but
also on the original motion, whether it's amended or not amended. I suspect with
the government majority that the amendment will pass and we'll vote on the
amended resolution.
The
problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the numbers in the amended resolution still don't
match the numbers that were presented in the budget documents a number of weeks
ago. The $1,313 comes right out of the budget documents, even though it wasn't
in the original motion today. Let me quote one of the budget documents here:
About 48,000 households will benefit from these changes, including seniors who
receive a higher benefit amount or receive a partial Seniors' Benefit for the
first time.
So this
is right in the section of the budget documents entitled Seniors' Benefit, yet
in this motion today the amended resolution that was brought in by the Liberal
Member who just spoke talks about some 45,000 households. So the numbers still
aren't right. One of the numbers is wrong. Is it the number in this amended
resolution, or is the number in the budget document?
Mr.
Speaker, it should be possible to pull the numbers straight out of the budget
documents, and one would trust that the numbers in the budget documents were
well researched and are accurate. It may seem like a minor point, but we're
talking about 3,000 households. So is the number in the budget document
incorrect, or is the number in this amended resolution incorrect? Did government
overestimate the number of seniors that would benefit from this Seniors'
Benefit?
One of
the things I find really challenging in this House is that when they're not on
camera, government Members will often shout across the House about Opposition
research staff, questioning our approach or our tactics or the issues that we're
raising in the House, but they're rather quiet today.
The fact
that they copied and pasted a resolution that we presented back in November 2013
suggests that they don't have any new ideas, they don't have any plan, they're
not presenting anything original to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Beyond
the issues with the motion today and the parliamentary procedure that we're
discussing here, I think we've really got to highlight that while the Seniors'
Benefit is a good initiative that we brought in several years ago, and it has
benefited thousands of seniors in our province, you have to consider all of the
additional costs, all of the additional burden that's being placed on seniors as
a result of this budget: gas taxes increasing dramatically, as we debated in
this House yesterday; insurance costs are going up considerably, which will
impact all seniors who pay insurance as well; the cost of food is going to rise
as a result of this budget, and more families, and in particular, more seniors
are going to be driven into poverty as a result of this budget.
Mr.
Speaker, I could also talk about long-term care and the impact of this budget on
seniors. So we're talking about how today in this resolution how the budget is
good for seniors, yet this government is reducing the number of long-term care
beds for seniors while hundreds of people in our province wait for long-term
care today. It just doesn't make any sense.
I've had complaints and concerns from various residents
of my own district and from around the province who are also concerned that
private pay rates in these long-term care facilities are going up as well. There
have been many cuts that will negatively impact seniors, so to celebrate the
Seniors' Benefit without acknowledging how devastating this budget is overall
for seniors is just irresponsible and we can't do that. Even if the original
motion is one that we voted on 2½ years ago, we can't celebrate this budget
today. We just can't.
Beyond cuts to long-term care, I'm getting bombarded
with communication from citizens who are concerned about cuts to the
Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. There are now drugs that
are not going to be covered as a result of this budget. Cuts to the adult dental
plan, seniors are not going to be able to get the dental care they need.
So it's great that a number of seniors will now have an
additional $250 in their pockets as a result of this benefit, but that happens
to be almost the exact amount that used to be in the Home Heating Rebate which
has been eliminated in this budget.
What the government has done here this afternoon or
what they've done in their budget is simply moved money around. There is no new
investment for seniors. There is no new dollars in the pockets of seniors. In
fact, seniors are going to be worse off as a result of this budget, and that has
to be acknowledged, Mr. Speaker.
The increase of $250 has been wiped out just with the
elimination of the Home Heating Rebate alone. So while the Finance Minister
would like to tell you that this is new money, it isn't new money. Most
households would have received approximately $250 from the Home Heating Rebate.
That was a valuable program and it has been eliminated in this budget. Now, I
guess those dollars have been rolled into the Seniors' Benefit.
So while the Finance Minister likes to trump enhanced
new funding, many seniors will not receive any more than they did previously.
And I would argue that all seniors who live on fixed incomes will be worse off
as a result of this budget. There are new fees, new taxes, an increase in
insurance tax, an increase in gas tax, so many seniors will be worse off under
this budget.
The Seniors' Benefit is one of the few things that the
Finance Minister repeatedly points to in defending the budget, which just amazes
me. They're cancelling the HST credit and they're cancelling the Home Heating
Rebate. These two programs that were key features of our plan would have
assisted seniors and, in fact, they would have assisted all low-income
individuals.
The HST credit that's being cut was $300 per eligible
individual, $60 per qualifying relation, $60 per qualifying dependant and the
net family income had to be less than $30,000. That's been eliminated.
The Home Heating Rebate has been eliminated. It was a
maximum $250 rebate for families with an income less than $35,000. There was a
$500 maximum rebate for coastal Labrador which made sense. There was a smaller
rebate for families between $35,000 and $40,000 in household income.
So my point, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to this motion
today is that the extra $250 that the minister likes to trump is not new money
at all. This is money that the Liberals rolled into the program from other
programs that they cancelled.
Mr. Speaker, seniors are not better off; they're worse
off. That's why we can't support this charade today. It's bad enough they
couldn't get the motion right. It's bad enough they copied and pasted a motion
from 2013 and didn't even update the numbers. Now in the revised motion, one of
the numbers is still incorrect or the number in the budget is wrong.
Beyond the Home Heating Rebate and the HST credit being
eliminated, you have to factor in some of the extra fees that seniors will now
have to pay: increases to personal income tax, tax on insurance, gasoline tax
and more. Many seniors are now wondering can they afford to live as a result of
this budget. So the Seniors' Benefit that we're talking about today
unfortunately is cold comfort to them.
Members opposite will say we're just playing politics.
We're not the only ones saying that this budget is bad for seniors. Dan Meades,
the provincial coordinator for the Transition House Association in our province,
who's also an anti-poverty advocate, has said that he says, My math says that
this budget sure does hurt people in poverty. He called the budget regressive
and said that it disproportionately charged low-income workers more. We have
many seniors in our province that would be in that low-income category.
These regressive increases in this budget aren't offset
by the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement or the Seniors' Benefit. They
don't offset the budget impacts to low-income residents.
Now, let's talk about what the Finance Minister said.
As I said, one of her only defences of the budget is the point of the Seniors'
Benefit and the Income Supplement. She said, We believe that the supplement is
providing relief for those individuals who are at the lowest income levels in
our province. However, she failed to recognize all the fees and taxes and
increases that these people now will have to pay.
She forgot the services that have been cut for seniors
in this province, cuts to libraries a lot of people who use libraries in this
province are seniors. Cuts to the Adult Dental Program, cuts to the Prescription
Drug Program just to give a few examples that we're hearing about at our offices
every day and I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that government Members are receiving
those kinds of calls, emails and letters as well.
Most of the calls that I've been receiving about the
budget are from seniors who have been impacted by cuts to the Adult Dental
Program or the drug program. They are also library users; they've lost many
valuable services. And this Seniors' Benefit that we're talking about today,
this increase doesn't offset those losses.
So back to the Finance Minister, she actually said, We
believe we've done a good job to mitigate most of the impact and make sure those
people are held whole. She actually said that, but it's factually incorrect,
Mr. Speaker. She believes they've done a good job to ensure the budget doesn't
negatively impact them, but I have to argue that point, Mr. Speaker. Seniors
don't agree with that statement. The seniors I talk to certainly don't agree
with that statement. Mr. Meades, the anti-poverty advocate, doesn't agree with
that statement, and I don't agree with that statement.
Both the Premier and the Finance Minister have stood in
this House and have said that there are people who will be better off under this
budget, but they haven't given us any examples. And for Members to stand and say
that seniors are going to be better off, I challenge that, Mr. Speaker. It's
factually incorrect. It's false information.
When reporters scrummed the Finance Minister in early
May they asked her that exact question. She couldn't answer at the time. She
couldn't give examples of which people will be better off because of this
budget. So while the Income Supplement and the Seniors' Benefit allocate money
to those who need it most and those are good things, a Seniors' Benefit is a
good thing, the Income Supplement is a good thing, but it doesn't offset the
budget increases. So when you look at the overall impact of what's happened to
seniors through this budget, it's bad.
So I would challenge the minister and there'll still
be opportunity in debate today to tell us how many people will be better off
under this budget and who are they because they're not seniors in our province.
Are there seniors in our province who are better off because of this budget? I
don't think so.
I only have a couple of minutes left but the
Newfoundland and Labrador 50+ Federation is also speaking out against this
budget and its impact on low-income individuals, especially seniors. Mr. Rogers,
the president of the Federation wrote: Seniors are among our most vulnerable and
are the heart of our province it is shameful that the Premier and Finance
Minister and the Minister Responsible for Seniors have shown no concern for
people and have made budget decisions which will be harmful to seniors. We are
dismayed and concerned about the impacts that the Liberals budget choices will
mean to many of our seniors. We are receiving calls from seniors every day
worried about they will pay their bills.
So the 50+ Federation understands the impact that this
budget will have on seniors and that's why this increase to the Seniors' Benefit
doesn't offset all those other hits it just doesn't. The negative budget
impacts are not offset
by the $250 increase. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the home heat rebate going
away alone, offsets any increase to this Seniors' Benefit. Fee increases, tax
increases, it's all disastrous to seniors and the 50+ Federation has
acknowledged that. They're receiving all kinds of calls as well.
We did
present an alternative to this. In Budget
2015 we presented the increased HST credit. We increased the funding from
$40 to $300 per person. That's now been wiped out. Amounts were also increased
for spouses and dependants. The Liberals would have been wise to keep this, but
they didn't.
We were
strong advocated of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program and
the adult dental plan. We know how much these programs were used. We committed
to keeping them in place. We knew how important those programs were for seniors
in our province. Each one of us has helped seniors access those programs, but
the Liberals have taken another approach.
Mr.
Speaker, their budget was lazy. They didn't consider the impact it would have on
seniors. They didn't consider the impact it would have on real people.
It's
outrageous that we're debating a motion that was first presented in November
2013. It shows how reckless and how much in turmoil this Liberal government is.
I think it's shameful what's happening in this Legislature today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise here today and speak to the private Member's resolution as
presented by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair. Yes, there was some
confusion. I believe that was certainly acknowledged by the Member for Placentia
West Bellevue. Just to clarify, and for those who maybe tuning in now, I'll
read the amended resolution to this private Member's resolution here today.
BE IT RESOLVED
that this hon. House supports the government's decision to provide
the Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit, a refundable tax credit for
low-income seniors, which this province is providing some 45,000 senior
households in our province with payments of up to $1,313 the highest amount
ever.
Now, we
did acknowledge there was some confusion around the motion earlier and that was
amended. I would actually like to thank the Member for Topsail Paradise, the
Official Leader of the Opposition, for bringing that up. That's what the
Opposition's job is to do, to hold us accountable and make corrections and
suggestions when necessary.
I'm not
so sure about him spending his entire speaking about our mistake. I believe
we've acknowledged that mistake and the important part about today is to talk
about the Seniors' Benefit and the provisions in the budget which are beneficial
to seniors.
The
Member for Mount Pearl North had just made a few statements I'd like to just
kind of correct or give some more context around, it you will. In particular,
the benefit of $250 increase for the Seniors' Benefit, you said that essentially
replaces the Home Heating Rebate. Well, in some regard it does, to the Member
for Mount Pearl North, however
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. FINN:
and that's fine.
The $250
rebate, that's a $250 maximum. What you also need to take into consideration is
that not all seniors would qualify for the Home Heating Rebate. In fact if you
were renting and your heat was included in your rental costs, you wouldn't have
qualified for the Home Heating Rebate.
Now with
the introduction of the Seniors' Benefit, all seniors will qualify for this
particular benefit. In addition to that, the administration of the Home Heating
Rebate was quite costly and with our introduction here we are actually saving
funds in that regard and, yes, this does account for $250. But, in addition to
that, there is another benefit for seniors which you did not mention at all;
that's the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement benefit that will also be
provided to our seniors.
A couple
other provisions I'd like to touch on and I don't have a whole lot of time due
to some amendments here today to speak and we are anticipating the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair to close on the debate. We have the healthy living
assessments. Under the Department of Health right now we are looking at
assessments to keep seniors in their home longer and that will reduce costs on
our health care system and reduce costs to long-term care.
We have
$2 million in the budget for exploring and planning options for long-term care
facilities in Western Newfoundland, as well as Central Newfoundland. That is a
direct benefit for our seniors. We're looking at long-term planning and we're
looking towards our future and while there was some tough decisions in this
budget, there are certainly some great provisions for seniors. Because we need
to understand right now what the next 10, 20, 30 years are going to bring.
When we
look at our demographics right now, even in the country as a whole, there are
more people over the age of 65 than there are under the age of 15. Our
population is rapidly, rapidly aging. We're expected to have the highest
percentage of seniors in the country in just 20 years from now. The highest
percentage of seniors in the country will be in Newfoundland and Labrador in 20
years from now.
So when
you look at long-term planning and correcting the fiscal mess that we're facing
right now, because we're anticipating costs to seniors, we're anticipating extra
cost to our health care system, so right now taking the measures that we have,
we're looking towards the future and, in doing so, we are putting these
provisions in place to ensure the most vulnerable are not affected.
The
Member for Mount Pearl North, as well as the Member for Topsail Paradise, also
mentioned some of the fee increases that are going to be drastic to the seniors.
Well if you look at the fee increase budget document, you will in fact see that
seniors are exempt from several fee increases, particularly around driver's
licence and driver's registration. They are exempt from those fee increases. So
I'm not sure where they are going with fee increases. Perhaps a $2 ticket
increase to an Arts and Culture Centre show or something may play a factor
there, I'm not quite sure. But you can't just say all these fee increases as in
all-encompassing as a whole.
In
addition to that, our government has committed to an office of the seniors'
advocate. That's a statutory office similar to that of the Office of the Child
and Youth Advocate. The seniors' advocate office is important. I think that's a
very important measure that we've put in place as there needs to be a particular
venue for their voices to be heard.
In
addition to the seniors' advocate office, the Seniors Resource Centre; this
budget allocates some $300,000 to the Seniors Resource Centre. That's going to
enhance the referral and information system because oftentimes, trying to
navigate these systems and trying to navigate where benefits are and what
services you can access becomes a bit time consuming and can be confusing for
some and particularly seniors. So the office of the seniors' advocate as well as
enhanced and increased funding to the Seniors Resource Centre is certainly meant
to alleviate some of that burden.
In
addition to that, today we had a great announcement in partnership with our
federal counterparts with respect to the temporary Deficit Reduction Levy. This
measure came in place as a direct result of the work of our MPs of this province
in terms of their lobby efforts and looking at ways in which they can help
Newfoundland and Labrador right now. I certainly applaud them for their efforts
in doing that.
As a
direct result, the threshold now for the temporary Deficit Levy is $50,000. I
would wager to believe most seniors in this province will certainly not be
subject to the temporary Deficit Reduction Levy. Further, it speaks volumes to
the fact that we called it temporary to begin with. We called it temporary and
we said we would remove this as soon as we had an opportunity to do so. Over the
last course of the couple of weeks, with the efforts from our Members of
Parliament, we've now been presented with the opportunity to do that and we've
done just that.
Also,
our federal government counterparts have introduced measures in their budget,
which came down in March, which also have direct benefits for our seniors and
that will be a top-up to the Guaranteed Income Supplement. We also have funding
from the federal government that's going to look at ways in which every province
in the country can leverage funds for affordable housing.
Our
federal counterparts have committed to a review of CPP and CPP contributions
and how that works. Further, the federal government has also decreased the Old
Age Security, the OAS eligibility age, which was previously going to go up to 67
and brought it right back down and held through on their promise to keep it at
65.
In
looking at some of the provisions that the federal government has made to help
seniors, we certainly followed suit on that. The Newfoundland and Labrador
Income Supplement benefit is one; the enhanced Seniors' Benefit is another. With
the Seniors' Benefit as well, our government held some round-table discussions
back in 2014 and went around and spoke to some of the seniors in the province.
One thing that they pointed out with the Seniors' Benefit was they said we get
this fee annually. We get this lump sum every fall, usually around October, of
approximately $900. It could be up to $1,000. Well, it's a great benefit and
it's a great chunk of money at that particular time of the year, but what
seniors told us is this. They said, one lump sum fee in October doesn't help me
out the rest of the year.
So what
we've done is we've gone ahead with quarterly installments. Based on this
budget, with respect to the first two installments, they'll essentially mirror
the amount they would get in the fall, the $900 to $1,000 figure, depending on
income it would be anywhere from $850 to $1,000 come the fall for your first
payment. Further, seniors will then see another payment in January. Then they'll
see another payment in April, another one in July, and then again in the fall.
So we're spreading out the funds over the course of the year in quarterly
installments specifically to help them get through the year.
With
respect to seniors, I have great respect for seniors. Both of my parents are
seniors. I don't know if they'd be happy if I pointed that out here, but it is a
fact. I've spent a number of years working directly with seniors and
particularly with seniors around affordable housing and affordable housing
concerns.
In fact,
just a couple of years ago I helped a landlord developer in the Stephenville
Port au Port District review the Affordable Housing Initiative agreement and
apply for funding through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to build affordable
housing units for seniors. The 'tenplex' that was built was just constructed in
the Town of Kippens. Certainly a tremendous benefit to seniors there, and of
course, under the Affordable Housing Initiative the whole intent is to provide
seniors with an affordable place to live and maintain those rental rates for a
period of time.
With
respect to seniors as well, the Member for Torngat Mountains really puts a good
lens on things, when I get the chance to have a conversation with him and the
Aboriginal lens, in particular. The Aboriginal lens always looks at respecting
your elders. It always looks at respecting your elders and looking after those
who have gotten you where you are here today. I certainly think we took that
into consideration when we delivered this budget. That's why we came up with the
Enhanced Seniors' Benefit, the Income Supplement benefit, amongst other
provisions, including the Seniors' Advocate Office as well.
I just
want to point out that as much as there can be some negativity with respect to
the Opposition and taking away uncertain points, there certainly is a lot of
good in this budget and there's certainly a lot of good news for seniors. To
those I've spoken with, they certainly are welcome to the fact that this fund,
under the Seniors' Benefit, will be spread out over the course of the year.
As that,
Mr. Speaker, my time is running short.
Thank
you very much for the opportunity to speak.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
take a few minutes now to close debate on this PMR. It would be incumbent on me
to start with there was a mistake here today, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not going to
spend 15 minutes talking about that mistake because it's taking away from the
focus of what we're doing to help seniors.
Mr.
Speaker, sometimes human error occurs. My colleague here did a very good job
explaining that, but I have to respond to comments across the way about my being
set up by my team. How ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, my being set up by my team. I'm
quite comfortable and happy that anybody here on this side, Mr. Speaker and
we've had a growing number, I've been here three years certainly would support
me and do whatever they could for me, and I say that with
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
I say that, Mr. Speaker, with
a great deal of confidence.
I want
to thank the speakers today, Mr. Speaker, who spoke on the motion. The Member
for Topsail Paradise, the Member for Placentia West Bellevue, the Member for
Mount Pearl North and the Member for Stephenville Port au Port.
Mr.
Speaker, just to reiterate some of the good things in the budget the budget
was tough, there is no doubt about that, but what we're doing here today is
we're highlighting some of the positive things, and in particular the positive
things for those who would be the most vulnerable in our society.
So $12.7
million annualized to enhance the existing Seniors' Benefit $12.7 million. The
increased Seniors' Benefit and the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement
will replace the following: the Home Heating Rebate and the provincial
harmonized sales tax, replacing that.
I'm
going to give a couple of examples for those who might be watching, those who
are fearful they are going to have less. We've done lots of calculations and
people will see. I'm assured that once the cheques start coming that in many
cases they will be better off.
Mr.
Speaker, a senior couple with a net income of $26,000 would receive now an
average annual supplement of $510; a Seniors' Benefit of the highest amount
$1,313. That materializes to quarterly installments of $455.75.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm certain when I especially reflect on the seniors, of course, that
I'm most familiar with, the seniors who live in the District of Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair. When I think about the income that comes into most of their
homes and the cost of living, a cheque showing up quarterly for $455.75 will
certainly be a benefit to them.
Another
example, Mr. Speaker, we could have a senior who has a net income of $17,000. I
also have lots like that in my district. His or her income is less than $29,402,
so they would be eligible, again, to receive the maximum amount of $1,313. A
senior who has a net income of $17,000 would be eligible to receive the maximum
amount which would be paid out in quarterly installments, Mr. Speaker.
The Low
Income Seniors' Benefit has been around since '99, but through
Budget 2016 there have been some
significant enhancements made. A $12.7 million annualized to enhance the
existing benefit.
For
those watching who might be wondering when they're receiving payment, July 2016
and October 2016. The first payment will include two quarterly payments and the
next payment will be in January 2017 and then, of course, April 2017.
We see
the low Income Supplement will be increased by more than $250. I'm sure that's
very good news. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about the Low Income Seniors'
Benefit, but in addition to that we have the new Income Supplement which many of
them will benefit from.
As we
heard this morning, the temporary reduction levy is now moved up to $50,000 in
net income. That will be a significant help to seniors. Three of four people in
our province now will not pay, including the seniors that we are talking about
here today.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to reiterate, we remain committed to the seniors in this
province. While we're faced still with some steep challenges as we address our
deficit and things like that, we will continue to work with our federal
counterparts. We will continue to work hard at our own caucus table, as a team,
as we try and wade through this financial crisis in the province. We always do
it, Mr. Speaker, looking through the lens of the most vulnerable. Looking
through the lens of the low income, the people with disabilities, the people who
have multiple challenges, and we'll continue to do that as we govern in the best
way we can in this terrible fiscal situation on behalf of the people we
represent in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
All in
favour of the amendment put forward by the Member for Placentia West Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The amendment is passed.
All
those in favour of the motion, as amended?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion, as amended, has
been passed.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division is called.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
All in
favour of the motion, as amended, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms.
Coady, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr.
Trimper, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Browne, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Edmunds, Ms. Haley, Mr.
Bernard Davis, Mr. Derek Bennett, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Bragg, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr.
Warr, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dean, Mr. King.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
as amended, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Paul Davis, Mr.
Hutchings, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Ms. Michael,
Ms. Rogers.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: 23; the nays: 8.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
declare the motion, as amended, passed.
The
House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 in the afternoon.