March 9, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 3
The
House met at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Before we begin, the Chair would like to recognize in the public gallery
today a group of Special Olympic Newfoundland and Labrador athletes, board
members and supporters, fresh from the 2016 Special Olympics Canada Winter
Games experience last week in Corner Brook.
We
welcome you to our galleries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also today we welcome
Major Michael Pretty, who will be the focus of a Member's statement today,
as well as Neil Burgess and Louis Marion.
Today I'd also like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery Kyle Johnson, a
level II student from Waterford Valley High School, who is job shadowing me
today.
Welcome, Kyle.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Members' statements.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the
District of Lewisporte Twillingate.
MR. D. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
rise in this hon. House here today to recognize Deborah Bourden and Wilma
Hartman of Anchor Inn Hotel & Suites in Twillingate on winning the
Accommodator of the Year Award last week at the Hospitality Newfoundland and
Labrador Annual Conference.
Deborah and Wilma purchased the Anchor Inn in 2011 and have developed a
successful hotel and restaurant that provides a cultural and historic
experience to their visitors.
They
have worked tirelessly not only to improve their own business, but to
improve tourism in their community and throughout Central Newfoundland. They
have demonstrated a commitment to the long-term development of the tourism
industry through their extensive involvement and leadership at various
levels.
From
co-developing a regional map that lists and locates all tourism operators
and being instrumental in organizing the first annual Digital Arts Festival
in September 2015 as a way to extend the tourism season, these
owner/operators are great ambassadors to the region, the province and the
tourism industry as a whole.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Deborah Bourden
and Wilma Hartman on this prestigious award and the contribution they are
making to the tourism industry in Twillingate and throughout the province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fogo
Island Cape Freels.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
a privilege to stand in this hon. House today and tell Noah Hunt's story.
Noah is 12 years old. Two years ago, what began as a simple tummy ache
escalated to a loss of 50 pounds. He was a very sick boy.
After weeks in the hospital, Noah's health took a step in the right
direction. He began to feel better. As Noah's health improved, he started to
wonder if there were things he could do to help find a cure.
This
February, Noah with the help of his parents, grandparents, family and
friends organized the first ever Noah Hunt Fishing Derby. It took place on
Spurrell's Pond and over 140 people participated in the event.
After all was said and done, the event raised over $3,700. As a reward for
his efforts, Noah has been selected as the honorary chair for the Gander
Gutsy Walk for Crohn's and Colitis for 2016.
I
ask all Members to join me in congratulating Noah Hunt for this
well-deserved honour, and thank him for doing his part to combat this
serious disease.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Conception
Bay East Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
rise today to acknowledge an organization and its leader for remembering
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who served and died in various parts of the
world, during World War I. I speak of the Trail of the Caribou project team
and their leader retired Major Michael Pretty of Portugal Cove-St. Philip's.
For the past 10 years these volunteers have researched every aspect of where
Newfoundland and Labrador soldiers from World War I are buried. Their
promise was to ensure that all members of the Newfoundland Regiment, who had
died, would be remembered.
Their quest has taken them around the world to ensure all graves are
identified and marked. At each grave site the team places a beach rock and a
Newfoundland flag. They also perform a private commemoration service
including the playing of the Ode to Newfoundland, the Last Post and the
reciting of the Act of Remembrance.
On
Remembrance Day, Major Pretty and his wife completed the team's quest by
laying a beach rock and Newfoundland flag on the grave of Captain Gerry
Goudie of Northern Arm.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join me in congratulating and thanking
Major Pretty and the Trail of the Caribou project team.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Placentia
West Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to recognize the heroism of a young man from Sunnyside, in my District of
Placentia West Bellevue.
James Seaward was home over the Christmas holidays from his posting in the
Canadian Armed Forces at CFB Shilo, Manitoba.
After spending the holidays visiting with his parents, Warrick and Shelley,
he decided to drive his vehicle back to Manitoba. En route, while driving
through Ontario, he witnessed a car go off the road and into a lake. He
immediately stopped his vehicle, entered the water, with no regard for his
own life.
The
passenger of the vehicle, a lone woman, was submerged in over four feet of
water. He pried the door open, cut off her seatbelt, put her over his back
and carried her to safety. She now credits him with saving her life.
Mr.
Seaward continued on to Manitoba, and it was only through media reports that
his commanders at CFB Shilo learned of his act of heroism.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join with me in recognizing
James and celebrating this act of valiance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the
District of Virginia Waters Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
would like to make a statement in this hon. House about Lt. Col. (Padre)
Thomas Nangle and his recent designation as a National Historic Person on
February 15th by the federal government.
The
Deputy Chief of Police (Ret.) Gary F. Browne, author, historian and Member
of the National Order of Merit of Police Forces worked relentlessly for more
than 15 years to have Padre Nangle officially recognized.
Gary
was astounded that Padre Nangle's efforts for World War I as chaplain to the
Royal Newfoundland Regiment and the Director of War Graves, Registration,
Inquiries and Exploit Memorials, has all but been forgotten. Padre Nangle
was responsible for the iconic Trail of the Caribou we heard just recently
about in France and Belgium, for the
Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial Park in France and
for the completion of the Newfoundland National War Memorial here in St.
John's on Duckworth Street.
Gary co-authored with Darrin McGraw a riveting book
entitled Soldier Priest in the Killing
Fields of Europe: Lt. Col. (Padre) Thomas Nangle. We thank Gary for his
hard work and dedication to remember Padre Nangle for his services to all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District of Topsail Paradise, the Opposition Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I've had the honour of attending the
Depart with Dignity Flag Raising Ceremony at the Town of Paradise on January
4th, 2016, for Paradise native Sergeant Judy Sparkes.
The Depart with Dignity program is offered by the
Canadian Forces to personnel who have at least 25 years of military service
to recognize the member's contribution to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.
In recognition of the member's lengthy service, the individual is eligible
for presentation of a Canadian Flag which is flown according to the member's
wishes.
Sergeant Sparkes began her career 35 years ago and
included posts across the country and around the world. It also included
five years as a flight attendant where she was involved in flights with
dignitaries including the Governor General, our prime minister and the royal
family in addition to repatriation flights. She had requested that her
Depart with Dignity Flag Raising ceremony be held in her hometown, the Town
of Paradise, right here in Newfoundland and Labrador where she intends to
reside after her retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in
congratulating and thanking Sergeant Sparkes for her loyal service. We are
proud to have a native resident serve our country with the dedication, the
commitment and allegiance that she has shown.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate the City of Corner Brook,
and the 2016 Special Olympics Canada Games committee, for their success this
past week in hosting the first-ever national Special Olympic Games held in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I had the honour of participating in the opening
ceremonies on March 1 and witnessing first-hand the positive energy and
spirit that defines the Special Olympics movement.
Mr. Speaker, the Special Olympics remind us of the
importance of inclusion when providing opportunities for all people to
participate in competitive sport. They also enable us to recognize and
celebrate the achievements of these accomplished athletes.
Close to 1,000 athletes from across Canada, along with their coaches, their
friends and their family members attended the games. Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate them all. I want to recognize, in particular, the 44 members of
Team Newfoundland and Labrador and their coaches for representing us so
well.
Newfoundland and Labrador athletes earned a total of 36 medals at the games
10 gold, 16 silver and 10 bronze more than double the medals that were
earned in the 2012 Winter Games.
Mr.
Speaker, I invite my colleagues in this House to join me in congratulating
the 2016 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games athletes, as well as their
coaches, organizers, volunteers and supporters for a job extremely well
done.
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
want to thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement. I, too, had
the privilege of attending the opening ceremonies last week in Corner Brook
and was truly impressed by the organization by the event itself, but
particularly by the number of volunteers who gave freely of their time to
ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador put off a number one show.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to personally thank on behalf of our caucus and our leader
the coaches, the organizing committee, the hundreds of volunteers, the
host committee itself and the City of Corner Brook. Particularly, I want to
acknowledge Mayor Pender who gave an inspiring speech in both official
languages, which impressed the delegates from the other provinces in this
country of ours.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to particularly acknowledge, too, what this event was all
about. It was about inclusion, no doubt, in the sporting world, but it was
about comradery. It was about sportsmanship, but it was particularly about
developing friendships. You could see on the floor that night the
friendships that were developed between the athletes from Newfoundland and
Labrador, the coaches and the volunteers, and those from all over this great
country of ours.
I
want to particularly congratulate our athletes for not only being great
competitors, but being great ambassadors for this great province of ours.
Mr.
Speaker, to those who won medals, congratulations and thank you to everybody
involved.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I,
too, thank the Premier for the advance copy of his statement. I am delighted
to join with him in congratulating everyone involved in creating a
successful 2016 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games this year.
Congratulations to all the athletes, some of whom are here. In particular,
the 44 members of our own provincial team, their coaches, the volunteers and
supports. May I say, well done to Jessica Summers from my own district who
won silver in snowshoeing, one of the 36 medal winners, and she's here
today.
I'd
also like to congratulate and recognize the law enforcement torch relay on
running to raise funds and awareness of the games. I think it's a very
important thing that they do.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, our government knows that this province is facing a difficult
fiscal situation and we are focused on reshaping Newfoundland and Labrador's
fiscal future. As we continue down the road to long-term sustainability, we
want to work together with our community organizations and bring clarity to
their current funding arrangements.
Our
government is keenly aware of the need to allow such organizations to focus
their efforts on the important issues instead of spending valuable time on
annual funding applications.
That
is why, for budget 2016-17, our government will not be making any changes to
the approximately $70 million in core funding that it provides to community
groups and grants.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
This support will be
maintained for the next fiscal year to enable groups to continue the
important work they do, while allowing time for us to conduct a
comprehensive review of all funding for community-based organizations. This
review will also support our commitment to provide multi-year funding to
community-based organizations.
Mr.
Speaker, through this action, our government is providing some clarity to
these groups while we work with them over the course of the next year,
leading up to budget 2017, to help ensure they are maximizing their funding
and being as efficient as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the minister for a copy of her statement. We, too,
on this side of the House obviously recognize the important role that
community groups like these play in Newfoundland and Labrador, certainly in
our biggest city to our smallest communities and to all the regions of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I
congratulate the minister and her government for recognizing the importance
and making, at this time, a decision in securing that the core funding will
stay in place so these groups can look at budgeting obviously for this year,
look at providing the important service they provide, and can move forward
this year with their own budgets and continue the good work they do.
As
well, it is worthwhile to look at overall reviews of funding to various
agencies at any particular time to make sure that funding is maximized, it
is well executed and going where those dollars can be maximized.
So
it's great to see the government is starting to make some decisions. We hope
to see more in the near future.
I
thank the minister for her copy of the statement. Congratulations on
securing core funding today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I,
too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Our community
groups provide life-saving work to our people efficiently and with great
sacrifice, in spite of the drastic underfunding by government who downloads
more and more on them.
With
our current economic situation people will need their services even more,
yet today the minister is saying she is freezing their core funding for
another two years. This is clarity. How can the minister call this
continuing support?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The
Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today to provide my hon. colleagues with an
update regarding early tendering for roadwork.
Early tendering is a commitment of our government and mandated by Premier
Ball as part of the development of a multi-year infrastructure plan to allow
companies to take full advantage of our short construction season in our
province.
Over
the past number of months, much work has been done to ensure early tenders
this year, and to lay the groundwork for the issuing of tenders as early as
January in the coming years. Regional directors and engineers have conducted
assessments and rankings of potential projects. This has been followed by a
provincial assessment and evaluation to identify shovel-ready projects based
on immediate needs.
Early tendering, Mr. Speaker, is one element of a new approach that is
informed by evidence and evaluation, and is proactive and long term. It also
reflects the principles of openness, transparency and accountability.
Early tenders for the 2016 construction season will be announced very soon,
Mr. Speaker, and in the coming months we will publicly release a multi-year
transportation infrastructure plan that will outline projects for the coming
years. This plan will also reflect projects to be cost shared with the
federal government under the Building Canada Fund.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before I recognize the
next Member to speak, I remind hon. Members that we refer to Members by
their district or their title, not by name.
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I want to thank the minister opposite for the advance copy of
his statement.
It's
good to see the minister releasing these tenders early this year. As you
know, the construction season is short. On a personal note, I've had
experience in the department. I know what pressures the Heavy Civil
Association has always been logged in to have early tenders. It's something
our previous government had committed to trying to get accomplished. So I
want to thank you for this initiative.
The
earlier the tenders, the earlier the work. It's a short season to get our
work done. Pavement is very important every year in the province.
I
just want to say thank you, and I look forward to seeing the tenders
released in the very near future.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I,
too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I am
pleased to see government follow through on this commitment, which is
something we've been calling on for years, especially the multi-year
funding.
Early tendering for roadwork ensures as much work as possible is done during
our relatively short construction season. I hope the government and the
minister, in the spirit of openness and accountability, will provide a road
construction web page similar to Nova Scotia's, which displays a scheduled
roadwork program via the government website allowing people to know when
roadwork will be performed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
My
first question, in my first Question Period as Leader of the Opposition, is
pertaining to a matter that's very important to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians today.
Mr.
Speaker, the sterilization challenges at Eastern Health have gone on for
weeks. Eastern Health has now moved to handwashing to sterilize surgical
equipment. Some surgeons are refusing to perform some surgeries. I know, as
a surgeon, the Minister of Health would have performed hundreds, if not
thousands I know he's very familiar with the processes involved in this.
However, the minister has been silent, largely absent and has declined media
interviews on this very serious issue.
We
want to know, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to know, if a
risk assessment has been done to ensure that new processes in place are
protecting patients and ensuring patient safety.
I
ask the minister if he has confidence in the processes that are being used
to sterilize equipment today.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
is my first answer in what I hope will be answer period.
First of all to the question about the ORs and the sterilization program at
Eastern Health, certainly it is a concern for all of us on this side of the
House, as it is for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I am happy to
report today that all ORs are functioning and surgeries are proceeding.
I
did meet with the CEO yesterday, with the minister and with officials of the
department. I can assure the Leader of the Official Opposition that the
minister is certainly on top of this. The fact that he may not be out in the
media every day, in the social media or whatever it is, but I can tell you
he is fully engaged with this. There are lessons that have been learned by
similar events that have happened across the country.
The
minister is engaged; we are very pleased. I would assure you that this is a
minister that has spent more time in the ORs than anyone else in this room.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition
Leader.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
acknowledge and we fully agree that there is one expert in the room, who
happens to be the Minister of Health. When it comes to this he is, no doubt,
more knowledgeable and much more experienced than any other Member here in
the House.
But,
Mr. Speaker, the people of the province are asking for answers, and the
people of the province want to know what the status is. The people of the
province look for assurance from our government to make sure that processes
and procedures that are taking place within our health care system are safe
for patients.
I
ask the minister as well, Mr. Speaker, if he can tell me if there's been any
additional impact to the health care system as a result of delays in
surgeries due to the sterilization issues. Have there been more backlogs?
Have there been backups in emergency rooms? Are beds being occupied by
patients that would otherwise be occupied by new patients if surgeries had
gone ahead? What other impacts are in health care as a result of these
delays?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I say to the Leader of the Opposition when you find yourself in the
situation where you have surgeries that would be cancelled, there's
obviously going to be people that would be impacted. I guess the only other
option would be to go ahead and continue surgeries with equipment that is
not sterilized. That is not an option for people on this side of the House.
We take procedures and the safety of all our patients and the people that
actually provide those services we take that seriously.
There are certainly problems there; that has been recognized. There are
mitigation risks that have been put in place to offset the challenges that
our workers are facing today.
I'm
very proud of the work that's been done. This is three weeks into a
situation, just over three weeks in. This is something that has happened in
other jurisdictions. The minister and the officials at Eastern Health have
taken the lead on this, and they've gone out and accessed the experts in
this field. We are putting measures in place today to make sure that we can
put this to rest.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
question was: What other impacts are in health care? We realize there are
patients who have had their surgeries postponed. The question is: What other
impacts have occurred in health care as a result of these delayed surgeries?
We look forward to receiving some more information on that from the Premier.
Mr.
Speaker, regardless of political stripe, we can all agree that people come
first and our number one goal is the success of the province. We are at a
critical time as a province. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador are
looking for leadership, a plan of action to deal with the fiscal crisis. And
even Liberal insiders are publicly crying out for this administration to get
on with it, to act sooner rather than later, and are saying 15 months is too
long to wait.
I
ask the Premier: When can the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect a
clear plan of action to address the current fiscal challenges?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
party and this government will be very proud to put a clear plan in place,
one that was quite different than the plan we saw and we updated the people
of this province on back on December 22 of this year. If we had continued on
the plan the past administration had put in place, the people of this
province would be faced with unprecedented borrowing, deficits of nearly $2
billion a year.
So a
plan will be put in place. What's important is the election of November 30th
saw the mid-year update coming out on December 22, and a plan will be put in
place that will be called budget 2016-2017. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker,
it will be much clearer than the plan that was announced in this very House
less than a year ago.
By
the way, the budget for the previous administration was announced last year
late in April, and that was after years and years of an administration with
no budget guidelines in place when they left their office. We had to start
and get to a very good start line, and we're getting there, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Premier and his Cabinet and his caucus were elected to govern, and governing
includes making decisions and showing leadership. Instead of taking action,
this government has wasted time. They continue to kick the can down the road
at a very crucial time in our province's history.
The
lack of action is causing people of the province concern and, as I said,
Liberal Party insiders are on the record of expressing their concern of the
lack of action and decision making. Fifteen months is too long.
I
ask the Premier: When will he show leadership, and when will he demonstrate
to the people of the province he is willing to take action on the fiscal
realities? Do we have to wait for the budget? Can he be making decisions
today?
He
said yesterday in the Throne Speech he is very proud of the decisions they
made. What decisions have been made? When is he going to get on with it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, there are a couple of critical components you must do when you make a
decision. It impacts people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am very pleased
today that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board made an
announcement, which was $70 million, to support core funding for a number of
associations in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
I want to go back to
decision making. Different than the previous administration, we believe in
listening to people. We do believe in consulting with people in Newfoundland
and Labrador. That will inform the budget process.
We've been just over 80 days as government right now. There's been quite a
bit of work to be done.
We
inherited a situation where there were absolutely no budget guidelines.
Normally, these guidelines are in place in September. In October, the
previous administration did nothing of that. So the first week in January,
that was the starting point for us. We had to make sure, number one, the
borrowing aspect getting long-term borrowing in place. It was in a
desperate situation in this province.
We've done quite a bit of work already. It will lead up to budget 2016 and
2017 and the forecasts there beyond.
I
say to the Leader of the Opposition, right now we will be listening. We'll
continue the consultation and you will not have to wait 15 months to see it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated their government will be smarter
and watch every dollar spent.
I
ask the Premier: What savings have been achieved since announcing in
December changes to hiring practices and discretionary spending? What is the
dollar value of those savings?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
certainly excited to stand and answer a question on behalf of the Opposition
here today. I believe the number is somewhere in the vicinity of about $100
million, which is substantially more than the former administration's
discretionary spending freeze that took place over the course of a much
longer period. I'd be happy to provide the Leader of the Opposition with the
exact details, and also be happy to provide that to the media.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition
Leader.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Well, I thank you,
Minister, for that thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the minister for that. We look forward to the details of that
information.
Mr.
Speaker, we're hearing a lot more from government about cutting. Yesterday,
in the Speech from the Throne, it was stated that everyone will have to
accept some level of sacrifice in the months and years ahead.
Mr.
Speaker, we had a plan to reduce the size of the public sector through
attrition with minimal impact on employees. In the fall, the Premier touted
during the election campaign that cutting jobs is not part of their plan. He
also said that under a Liberal government, public sector jobs are safe.
Now,
we know that jobs are on the table as part of everything's on the table.
I
ask the Premier: How many public sector jobs do you anticipate your
government is going to eliminate?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What
the Members on this side of the House have committed to is a process of fair
negotiation. We've been meeting with our labour leaders. We've had many
meetings with our labour leaders. So right now the primary way to reduce the
size of the public service would be attrition.
I
remind all parties in this House of Assembly that in the election platform
both the Official Opposition and the Third Party had attrition as part of
their election platform, I say, Mr. Speaker. So it will be a fair
negotiation.
Realizing the significant impact that we have in our province right now,
debt servicing, as it exists right now, would be somewhere around $824
million, based on the plan that the previous administration had put in
place. If that was left unchecked, you would see that debt servicing raise
to over $1.4 billion.
I
can tell you, if there's a way to cut the public service, it is increase
borrowing, keep having to pay debt servicing, then we will have no choice
someone else will make the decision for us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Minister of Finance has stated time and time again that everything is on the
table. In the Speech from the Throne yesterday, the Liberal administration
committed to proceeding with full-day kindergarten and also tourism
marketing. Both were announced to confirm just a couple of days before the
Minister of Finance stated that everything was on the table. They did that
to safeguard some things, and we understand that.
Did
the government really not see fit as well to include safeguarding such
services as child protection, health care and our hospitals?
So I
ask the Premier: Is everything on the table or are other matters and others
parts of government going to be protected?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What
I said back a few minutes ago, when it comes to making decisions, we had
made a commitment to full-day kindergarten. That's a commitment that we
stand by.
When
you look at the way you offer services to people in our province, no matter
what those services are, we always look for the most cost-effective way to
be able to do it, because when you do that in the most cost-effective way,
it's the way to make sure your services and programs are sustainable. That's
what we want to do. So in order to protect those services, it's important
now that we listen to the people who actually use those services.
When
you look at things like public safety, you look at things like health care,
you look at things like education, these are things we've had significant
discussion on and we will continue to do that. Because as I said in the
speech yesterday, if we simply do not change the way we do things, change
the way we make decisions, well, I can tell you what, you will see programs
that someone else will make a decision for because it will be unsustainable.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you again, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Premier is on the record as saying they have a plan. He has said: We have a
plan and people are going to like it. The Minister of Finance is on the
record as saying she wasn't sure which parts of the public service she would
eliminate until she saw the books.
So,
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Can you tell the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador which health clinics and which schools in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador are on the chopping block? Is this part of the plan that people are
going to like?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I can tell you there was one plan that the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador did not like, and they voted on that on November 30th
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
because that plan led
to many closures of health clinics. It led to many closures and loss of
services in a lot of areas in this province. The plan that the previous
administration put in place, that we reported on, as I said earlier, on
December 22 needed to be changed. It was not sustainable. It would not lead
to increased services or better services for anyone in this province. So
we're happy today to be able to work on a plan that will be sustainable,
that will be viable and will continue to supply and provide sustainable
services to the people of our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Yes,
the people of the province did elect the Members opposite as their
government. They did choose their plan. They went to the people of the
province with what they said, they had a plan. For two years the Premier has
been saying he had a plan, and they elected him on the basis that they had a
plan. I just heard the Premier say we're working on a plan.
Is
the Premier now saying today that they didn't have a plan when he told the
people they did and now they're only working on it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When
you put in place a plan, as I said earlier, the important piece is to get to
a start line. It's to understand where you are when put in place things like
a budget.
What
I did on September 28, 2015, is I wrote a letter. It wasn't a long letter.
It was pretty concise, quite frankly, to the former premier, the now Leader
of the Official Opposition. Two things that I was looking for was an update
on Muskrat Falls, which was subsequently provided by the Oversight
Committee, and I looked for a fiscal update in the affairs of this province.
Well, quite frankly, for some reason I did find out on December 2 what that
reason was, because that was just after the election when I had access to
much more information.
The
former premier made a decision not to answer that letter and hid the
information from the people of our province. The stark reality is the
circumstances in our province right now are quite different than they were
last year at budget time. The Premier decided not to answer those letters,
decided not to inform the people of our province the realities of what we
face today in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, it certainly
sounds like the Premier is now saying they didn't actually have a plan at
that point in time. Well, maybe they did, Mr. Speaker, because at that point
in time, last year we had anticipated a $1.2 billion deficit, at the same
time the now Premier is saying he had a plan.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: If you had a plan for $1.2 billion, well, where
is that plan? At least you should have that plan to be able to present to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, number one, on November 30th of this year the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador made a decision to give this party a mandate for the next four
years. Part of that mandate included a $1.2 billion plan. It is not a
three-month plan, or a four-month plan; it's a four-year mandate. For us to
deliver that mandate we will put together it will start with budget
2016-2017.
I
would say to the Leader of the Official Opposition, after 10, 12 years in
government I am surprised when you look at the significant deficits we've
seen with this previous administration, with $25 billion in oil royalties
and money from the Atlantic Accord. The fact is, are they actually proud of
the record that would lead to $15.4 billion in borrowing for the people of
this province at an unprecedented time, setting revenues at an all-time high
in this province? This is what we get after 10, 12 years of this
administration?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Now
from that answer, based on the question that was asked, it almost sounds
now, well, maybe he did have a plan. Because earlier he said he's working on
a plan, now he says maybe he did have a plan.
I
ask the Premier: If you did have a plan for $1.2 billion, will you table
that plan here in the House?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
think it's still on the website there, so he can just do his research
(inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition
Leader.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I guess, Mr. Speaker,
he's referring to the rhetoric that was combined in his Liberal Red Book, I
think what he's referring to today, because we know how academics and we
know how professors at the university felt about their plan. We'll be asking
lots of questions on their plan, I can assure you, in the coming weeks.
Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the matters I mentioned earlier, and it's very
important to the people in our province, is health care.
I
ask the Premier if he can confirm that the tender to construct Green Bay
Health Centre has been cancelled.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
tender for the Green Bay Health Centre came in way over the amount of money
that was allocated. It has been deferred and is being reworked to be
resubmitted.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
will ask the Premier: Did he consult with the people of Green Bay before he
decided to cancel that tender?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
consult with all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, unlike the previous
administration.
He
talked about a plan, well, maybe it's appropriate right now that I use my
time, and the few seconds that I would have, to talk about a long-term care
plan that the previous administration which I'm sure the people in the
Green Bay area would be interested in knowing.
In
the previous premier's plan, it talked about a long-term care plan. It was
actually cost neutral. So when we went looking after the election to
determine how this would be paid for, guess what, Mr. Speaker? There was no
money allocated.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We'll go down that road in the coming weeks as well. We're starting to get
some information from the Premier, information that we didn't expect to
hear, that's for sure. I can tell you that we have some further questions
that we're going to pursue on that matter.
On
the Green Bay Health Centre, Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite, the Premier
and his government like to consult. They haven't consulted with people
before they cancelled the tender.
I
wonder if the Premier can tell us: Will you consult specifically with the
people of the Green Bay area on what services will be eliminated from the
Green Bay Health Centre clinic as you re-scope that project?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
didn't make myself understood. The cancellation of the tender has not
actually occurred. It's simply being withdrawn, deferred, while it's being
reworked. It's still there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the premiers of the other oil-producing non-equalization receiving
provinces, Brad Wall of Saskatchewan and Rachel Notley of Alberta, are
fighting for infusions of federal funding while oil revenues are down.
Will
our Premier join these premiers in fighting for fairness so our people will
not have to endure deep cuts while revenues are drastically down?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When
you go looking for information, what's appropriate and timely is to actually
read all the documents. Stop just reading headlines; read everything that's
in the information.
What
the Member is referring to, there's been no special or unique circumstances
or money that's been allocated by the federal government to Alberta and
Saskatchewan or to Newfoundland and Labrador. What's been announced is a
$1.4 billion fund; $400 million, I'm proud to say, will be for Newfoundland
and Labrador
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
less than $400 million for Saskatchewan and the remaining goes to Alberta.
In actual fact, I think the Member opposite should know that it's not even
new money that we've heard so far.
We're all looking forward to March 22 when we'll see the federal budget that
will come out. It is then you will tell what programs are in place for this
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker,
he's exactly right, it's not new money. This New Building Canada Fund that
was signed in 2014, originally, when it came out, they were talking about
new money for infrastructure. So it's not new money; it was money that was
approved by the prior administration in Canada to renew the Building Canada
Fund.
Mr.
Speaker, the principle of equalization is entrenched in the country's
Constitution. Quebec will get $10 billion to help it cope with the revenue
shortfall this year; Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, $1.7 billion; Ontario,
$2.4 billion, as examples.
How
can everything be on the table when our Premier is not advocating for a
change to federal policy and additional revenue for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
I can tell you one thing
that Members on this side of the House are advocating for and that is going
looking for the money that has already been announced and available to you,
like the Small Communities Fund; $34.9 million that this previous
administration just left there; never even used the $60 million that was
available, which they spent literally, or made allocations or commitments to
in two years; missed the significant opportunity to use a leveraging
opportunity on $34.9 million; did not even take the time to sign the
agreement.
We
have done that. The Minister of Municipal Affairs right now, I am very proud
to say we got on that right away. That will be done. It will be available
to the people of our province.
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
government has been creating a climate of fear since they have been elected.
During the campaign, the Liberals promised no job cuts. Now everything is on
the table.
I
ask the Premier: Will he guarantee the workers of this province there will
be no job cuts?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One
thing that I know about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, if there is a
message, they want to know something; they want to know the facts. What we
have outlined so far, really, there is no pleasure from any Member on this
side of the House announcing and talking about some of the things that we
have had to, but they indeed are the facts.
It
is not fearful. What it is, though, people will be engaged or offering some
tremendous opportunities and ideas for us. It is part of the consultation.
So it is not about fear really, I say to the Member opposite. What it is, it
is about outlying what the facts are, what the current financial landscape
is in our province right now.
The
other option when you think about it would be, what, to lie to the people of
our province? That is not something we are prepared to do.
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 said he is talking to people and consulting. Well, he can't be
talking to the people I am speaking to. People are in fear.
During the election campaign, we all knew what was happening. We all knew
there was a nosedive in the price of oil. We were going to be deeper in
debt. The whole province knew that.
I
ask the Premier: Why did he keep promising things that he is now not
keeping, like no job cuts?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As
the Member opposite should know, if you're following the financial situation
in our province, things have changed drastically since the 1st of November.
Even when the election platforms were announced, we've seen oil prices
continue to drop, continue to erode. We've seen other sections and
industries in our province significantly challenged as well.
These are all factors that you have to put in when you put in place budget
2016-2017. It's fair. The best way to do things is make sure you understand
what it is you can afford.
Things have changed considerably in our province right now, and we will use
the evidence and the information that we have to inform the decisions that
we make in budget 2016-17.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Women and children are hit hardest in bad economic times. On February 1st,
the eight Status of Women Councils wrote the minister asking for a modest
increase in funding over a four-year period. Their funding has already been
frozen for five years, even while the demand on their services was
drastically increasing, and it's getting worse. Now, it looks like a
seven-year freeze despite increasing operating costs.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: It being international women's week, will she
guarantee their request for a modest increase over four years so they can
continue their life-saving work for the women of our province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Since being appointed the privilege of being the Minister Responsible for
the Women's Policy Office, I've had the opportunity to tour several
facilities and several Status of Women organizations in the last 86 days. I
want to correct the Member opposite on her comment that she made in
reference to the Ministerial Statement that I made.
There was no mention of freeze. There was clearly, clearly a mention that as
we work with community groups, we intend to explore opportunities for
efficiency. As a matter of fact, the Member opposite attended a session in
my district where she heard from an accountant that said maybe we shouldn't
have these organizations paying $5,000 accounting fees but rather a $2,500
management review. That's the things we're looking at.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
A
two-year guarantee of a funding freeze is not multi-year commitment in
funding.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Will she guarantee the Premier's commitment to
multi-year funding for these groups, not simply a two-year freeze in
funding?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
It
is a privilege to get up again and explain to the Member opposite that when
you look at the money that the community organizations are spending, it is
very important we look at all of the costs they spend, to ensure every
dollar possible that needs to get into the services particularly for
families and for women and children gets there.
So
when a former administration has a rule, as an example, that auditing has to
happen in a certain way that puts restrictions on the amount of money that
goes forward, whether as an expense of rents that are paid, it is important
for us to work with those community organizations to ensure, first and
foremost, that women and children who are affected by violence have every
cent available to them in their service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question
Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Sorry, I didn't see the hon. the Minister standing. Were you
AN HON. MEMBER:
No, I was just
stretching.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Striking Committee I have the honour to present the
Committee's Report, which I will now read.
The
Striking Committee appointed on March 8 recommends, pursuant to Standing
Order 65(1) and (3), that the following Members comprise the Standing
Committees of the House of Assembly for the 48th General Assembly.
Government Services Committee: the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member
for Bonavista, the Member for Burin Grand Bank, the Member for Ferryland,
the Member for Harbour Main, the Member for Mount Pearl North, the Member
for Stephenville Port au Port and the Member for St. John's East Quidi
Vidi.
Social Services Committee: the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, the
Member for Burin Grand Bank, the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune,
the Member for Harbour Main, the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands, the
Member for St. George's Humber, the Member for St. John's Centre, the
Member for Topsail Paradise.
Resource Committee: the Member for Baie Verte Green Bay, the Member for
Cape St. Francis, the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island, the
Member for Exploits, the Member for Fogo Island Cape Freels, the Member
for Harbour Grace Port de Grave, the Member for St. John's East Quidi
Vidi and the Member for Stephenville Port au Port.
The
Public Accounts Committee will be: the Member for Conception Bay East Bell
Island, the Member for Baie Verte Green Bay, the Member for Conception Bay South, the Member for Fogo Island Cape
Freels, the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave, the Member for St.
George's Humber and the Member for St. John's Centre.
The
Privileges and Elections Committee will be: the Member for St. George's
Humber, the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Harbour Grace Port de
Grave, the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi and the Member for
Stephenville Port au Port.
The
Standing Orders Committee will be: the Member for Burgeo La Poile, the
Member for St. George's Humber, the Member for Mount Pearl North, the
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi and the Member for St. John's West.
The
Miscellaneous and Private Bills Committee will be: the Member for St.
George's Humber, the Member for Bonavista, the Member for St. John's East
Quidi Vidi, the Member for Harbour Main and the Member for Mount Pearl
North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Answers to questions for which notice has been given.
I'm
sorry, the hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I want
to give notice that I will ask leave to introduce to a bill entitled, An Act
To Amend The Financial Administration Act, Bill 4.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of
motion?
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act, Bill 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of
motion?
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend
The Inter-Provincial Subpoena Act, Bill 5.
Further, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Parliamentary Assistant Act And The Parliamentary
Secretaries Act, Bill 3.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of
motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
It being Private Members'
Day and almost 3 o'clock in the afternoon, we don't have time for petitions
so I will call on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to bring forward the
resolution that stands in his name.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank you for allowing me to begin debate on this private Member's
resolution, and I'll begin by reading the resolution:
BE
IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urges the Government of Canada to recognize
the impact of the steep fall in oil revenues on our province and that it
consider financial support to our province in order to prevent deep cuts in
services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador;
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House urges the Government of Canada to
modernize federal-provincial arrangements, including the Equalization
Program and the Fiscal Stabilization Program to more fairly and promptly
reflect our province's needs and to more fairly account for our natural
resources revenues.
That
notice was given yesterday for debate today.
Mr.
Speaker, leadership is many things and it's been defined in many, many ways.
We know that one characteristic of leadership that's constant always is the
ability to make difficult decisions. Sometimes, making difficult decisions
may sometimes strain relationships. We know that and we understand that.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are no stranger to having strained
relationships with other jurisdictions or with the country. We know that
having strained relationships, sometimes, is particularly true when it comes
to politics in particular.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier has made a lot about his relationship with the prime
minister. I'm glad he has a good relationship with the prime minister. We
are all, on this side of the House, glad he has a good relationship with our
prime minister.
We
hope that this relationship will result in tangible benefits to Newfoundland
and Labrador. We hope that this relationship will result in the Government
of Canada paying greater attention to our province than we've seen in
history. We all know the history of the relationship between us and our
federal counterparts. We also hope this relationship will help, and prompt
to action to address these very important issues that we face as a province
today.
We
know that hasn't happened before. Our history is very long, very deep and
very colourful when it comes to our relationship between us as a province
and our federal government. If history repeats itself, and the federal
government continues to treat Newfoundland and Labrador with indifference,
similar to what we've seen in the past, then it's going to be important for
our Premier to step up to represent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
The
people of our province have to come before the friendship he has with the
prime minister. Hopefully that won't happen. I have to stress, we're not
advocating and hoping that happens. We're hoping that doesn't happen. We're
hoping the relationship is going to be beneficial to our province.
Ronald Reagan once said, When you can't make them see the light, make them
feel the heat. That's quite often what happens when it comes to
relationships between our province and the federal government.
We
know the long history. Maybe it's because of our relatively small
population; we have a small number of federal MPs representing our province.
We've often had to fight tooth and nail to get attention and to get what we
believed was our fair share, to get what we believed was rightfully
belonging and that we were entitled to, that we should receive from our
federal counterparts.
That's not how it's supposed to happen. Sometimes we have these bad and
strained relationships. That's not how it's supposed to happen, that we have
to fight tooth and nail when we're in a federation and supposed to be able
to work together. We are supposed to be able to have those discussions. We
hope that happens, but in reality it is not always the way that it takes
place, even though as much as we wish it could.
The
Atlantic Accord, back in 1985, was an agreement between two PC governments,
but it didn't come easy. Just the year prior to that, there was disagreement
between the governments of the day. There was a Liberal government in Ottawa
and a PC government in Newfoundland and Labrador back in 1984 and there was
disagreement over the Atlantic Accord. There was disagreement, fighting and
battling between both governments in effort for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians to benefit from the offshore resources that we believe we
brought into the federation. We were blocked and we fought back.
The
Opposition federal Tories at the time and actually it included a gentleman
that we all know very well and I know that we all admire, Mr. John Crosbie.
He was there at the time and he sided with us in 1984. When they were
elected soon after that, the Atlantic Accord was born. We are all better off
for it today and our province has been better off for it today.
Here
we are a couple of decades later, we remember what happened. We realized the
history of it. Again, we are facing a relationship between us as a province
and our federal government as well, our Liberal federal government that is
in Ottawa today.
Again, our government fought tooth and nail for fairness. It was by
fighting, a couple of days after that, that we got a better deal from the
Liberal prime minister of the day, Prime Minister Paul Martin. It was only
because of the battle that Newfoundland and Labrador brought to the doorstep
of Prime Minister Martin that Newfoundland and Labrador benefited and
improved on the benefits being received. Again, thank goodness for that as
well.
Voisey's Bay benefits were the product of a fight. Hebron benefits and other
offshore benefits were products of fighting and advocating for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, putting our province first and our people
first in our efforts when we went, lobbied and fought against our federal
counterparts to get what we believed we should receive from such activities.
Some
fights were not successful and in some battles we were not successful: the
redress to the Upper Churchill, the energy corridor through Quebec. I think
most generations have seen, at some point in time, what has happened between
us, the federal government and Quebec in trying to open access in a corridor
through Quebec. It has not been easy.
But
it was right to take a strong stance and a strong view on these very
important issues, because there were important benefits at stake for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. There were important benefits at stake for
our province. Failing to take a stand would have been the wrong thing to do.
It would have denied us important gains that benefited our people, the
people of our province.
Now,
we have a new prime minister today, Mr. Speaker. Prime Minister Trudeau, by
all accounts, seems to be a good guy, seems to be a nice guy. People like
him and people are liking what he's doing. Many were quite optimistic when
they saw his victory last year. There have been examples we know in the
past, as I said, when we have these relationships, but we want to have a
good relationship, if that's there, but we also need to protect our
federation.
There are other premiers we see today now. We see other premiers today who
are fighting for their jurisdictions, are fighting for their province. We
look at who is now known as the most popular premier in the country, in
Saskatchewan, Premier Brad Wall. He is fighting for his province. For
several years, Premier Wall has been seeking and looking for a rework of the
federal transfer formulas. Long before the current circumstances faced
Saskatchewan, the premier, Premier Wall, was out saying the formula's not
right and it should change.
There was once a time when the formulas benefited Saskatchewan, but they
don't anymore. He recognized that. He recognized the system was broken, the
system wasn't working, and he wanted it fix. Even more today, now that that
broken system is proving him right, he's now looking for a correction by the
federal government.
Mr.
Speaker, when oil markets bottomed out, his case truly became more
compelling and people started to pay attention to it. How could Saskatchewan
continue to carry the country when their oil revenues were through the floor
and they're facing what they're facing today? Why should he be paying to
subsidize social programs in Quebec, in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, in
Manitoba and Ontario when even in the Quebec example, Quebec was trying to
block the very pipelines that were needed to drive the Saskatchewan economy?
If Quebec was trying to block the pipelines, that economy in Saskatchewan is
going to deliver value, money and transfers to the Province of Quebec.
What
does Premier Wall do about it? Did he step aside, go in his office and close
his door and say we had enough of this? No, he hasn't. He stepped up his
fight, and something very interesting has happened. On the 28th of December
CBC News reported not only has
Premier Wall fought for fairness for Saskatchewan, but he's also taken a
strong stance for neighbouring Alberta. Premier Wall spoke up on behalf of
Albertans.
Now,
that's a long ways away, but he also took a stand for another province. He
talked about Newfoundland and Labrador. He's talking about the benefits that
Newfoundland and Labrador should be having from equalization, if the formula
was changed and if it was fixed so that provinces such as Saskatchewan and
Alberta, and also Newfoundland and Labrador, would benefit from it. We are
the oil-producing provinces and it's our provinces that are being impacted
the most.
Here's what he said, Mr. Speaker, 'It might be time for the federal
government, not through a direct bailout to any sort of sector, but to
realize that Newfoundland and Labrador
Alberta and Saskatchewan perhaps
should be provided some of that [money] back.' He was talking about the
money that the provinces had contributed to the federation through
equalization with the contribution the provinces made during the good times.
He's saying that they should be provided some of that money back. He said it
publicly and he said it on behalf of his constituents, the people of his
province, the people of Saskatchewan.
He
recognizes that rejigging the formulas is difficult. He realizes that, he's
talked about that, and it's not likely to happen quickly. He said, to avoid
the challenge of trying to reach consensus on changes to the country's
equalization formula which we know can take a very, very long period of
time he's asked in his talk about the possibility of a special payment
that can be made outside of the program to alleviate the pressures that our
government, the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Alberta are
dealing with. He's called it a special payment.
This
is at a time when these three provinces, who are significant financial
contributors to the federation, have seen a quick shift in the economies of
these three provinces. So asking for a special payment on behalf of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and Alberta and Saskatchewan well for me,
personally, I thank Premier Wall for him taking that position. I thank him,
and I'm sure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians join with me, in him speaking
publicly on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador and for standing up for us
and fighting for fairness.
We
also recall another time in the past this is not the first time
Saskatchewan has stepped up for us. They've done it in the past. Today is so
vital. It's so vital that we stand side by side with the counterparts in the
federation, with the other members of the Council of the Federation I know
the Premier recently attended meetings and I'm sure he'll share some of that
with us today; I would expect that he'd do that and that they work
together and talk about the circumstances that have changed so quickly. I'm
sure they have talked about the circumstances that have changed so, so
quickly in our province. That's sometimes what can happen; things can change
very, very quickly.
Mr.
Speaker, we know from yesterday and I know from a story on CBC, I haven't
heard the Premier say this directly, but the story indicates that the
Premier will, at some time in the future, be having discussions, but also
said he believes the Equalization Program is what it is. The story from CBC
does indicate that the Premier's comments yesterday is that at some point in
time there will be discussions.
Maybe he has already had them. Maybe he has already gone to Ottawa and he
has already talked to the prime minister. I haven't heard that and it's not
what's reflected in the story. I know stories quite often don't reflect all
the information. If the Premier speaks on this today, which I expect he
probably will, maybe he can talk about that a little bit, about the working
effort he's already done. I expect he'll do that.
So
what's at stake for us as a province, Mr. Speaker, is very serious, very
significant for us as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are
limited opportunities for changing the circumstances we find ourselves in.
There's increase in revenue, which is taxes, as the Premier talked about
yesterday.
He
was asked if he was going to increase taxes. He said, well, we're going to
increase our revenue. He was asked again and he said we're going to increase
our revenue. We know that means a tax increase, unless there's some other
way through the federal government that we're going to get extra revenue. We
have to increase our revenue, we have to cut programs, reduce programs and
spending, and we also have to borrow. That's the three remedies that are
available to the government and to the Premier.
So
having an opportunity for additional funding from the federal government is
critical at this time. That's what this is about. This is about advocating.
This is about asking the federal government to consider financially
supporting us as a province. I believe we can do that jointly as a House.
We
talked at some length yesterday about the importance of co-operation. We've
stated our position that we're quite willing to co-operate with the
government. I believe the Third Party is willing to do that to benefit
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We ask all Members in the House to support
the resolution that is on the floor this afternoon.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I've
noticed and, of course, I've read the PMR that was presented today in this
House of Assembly. The former premier just spent considerable time talking
about an Equalization Program. What he didn't spend any time on, to my
knowledge, was the Stabilization Program which is also available.
I'm
pleased to say this is a program that we've been advocating on behalf of our
province already. It's a program that will be worth around $31 million. Only
once before in our history did we receive this, and this was in the early
'90s
With
that said, this is a program that, as I said, will bring in $31 million in
revenue to our province, but is really part of a program that exists at the
federal level. Many provinces would be able to access this program because
it's based on a formula that says if you see revenues that would actually
fall in your province by about 5 per cent based on the previous year so it
is really 95 per cent of adjusted revenue from the previous year you can
access this fund. I am happy to say this is a program we will be able to
access, which will be about $31 million.
There's been a lot of discussion today around this resolution about a
relationship. I think the former premier started about he said leadership
is many things. Of course it is, but so are relationships. Relationships are
something that evolve and are developed over time. I will say with the
current Prime Minister of Canada, with our federal colleagues we have in the
federal Cabinet and the MPs who represent us, we have built up a
relationship over quite a bit of time.
Will
there always be, or from time to time do we anticipate or expect we will be
able to have frank discussions and open discussions in meetings with our
federal colleagues? Of course we will. Sometimes you need a little frank
discussion, sometimes some intensity in a room, to get decisions made. I'm
guessing over the mandate of this administration, and the federal
administration, that might occur from time to time.
Rest
assured, every Member on this side of the House will stand up for the people
that elected them. We will stand up for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Taking gestures and looking for sound bites and running out of meetings and
offices and saying, well, I don't trust that guy, or you do some awkward
things publicly for the sake of getting media attention because it looks to
be dramatic at some point in time don't expect that from me right now, but
you will get very frank and honest answers as things evolve.
Well, I can tell you, right after November 30th, and prior to that, as I
said before, we started to build relationships, not just with our
colleagues, the federal members, but also with our Atlantic Canadian
premiers. This is a relationship we've been developing for quite some time.
Now,
I want to talk about equalization. As people who would know me, I like to
lay out the facts as they exist. There was a comment that was just made, and
I find it a little odd to be honest with you because it was a comment that
was made about provinces contributing to a pot or an equalization fund.
Well, I want to clarify that because there is no equalization fund that
provinces contribute to. In actual fact, this is how it works.
Equalization is a program that was put in place around 1957. It's worth just
shy of $18 billion. You get all provinces that would access this fund and
it's based on trying to find a mechanism that you could actually supply
services to the people across Canada. What you do is you compare yourself to
other jurisdictions and where you fit on that benchmark. There is money then
that is allocated out of the $18 billion fund that the federal government
put in place. That's how the fund exists. It's not as if Newfoundland and
Labrador or Ontario or some other province would write a cheque called
through the Equalization Program. That is not how it works.
The
program actually is increased based on the GDP of the country, not what
happens in your particular case within a province. It is a very complex
formula, I would say to the Members opposite. I can tell you right now, in
2007 the former administration had to make a decision because the
equalization formula was being reformed. You either had to opt into a new
formula the new formula was based on being predictable over a three or
five-year period.
It
was not as responsive as the old formula. What happened? The previous
administration made the decision to go into a new formula. The problem is if
you opt into a new formula, guess what? You could not come out of it.
Therefore, the natural resource revenue and so on would get included in the
overall revenue that we see within our province and it made it more
difficult to receive equalization more responsive. All provinces, by the
way, are into this new formula as it exists today, so it makes it more
difficult.
What
was not mentioned today and I will challenge why the premier did not
mention this is the formula is actually negotiated every five years. It's
a federal program. When you think about a government that's been in place
for 13 years almost, there would have been at least two occasions when the
former administration in this province had an opportunity to put what they
felt the equalization formula should look like, and they failed to do it.
As a
matter of fact, it was as late as 2014 when this administration had an
opportunity to put in place what they felt would be the appropriate program
that would benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They failed to do it.
They didn't stand up for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians then, and here we
are four months into this administration and they're over there talking
about lack of leadership?
Mr.
Speaker, I tell you, I am just absolutely bewildered that we would see
someone stand up today after four months and claim that Members on this side
are not fighting for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It's actually not the
way it is at all. There have been quite a number of meetings. I just
mentioned one about the Small Communities Fund in Question Period, somewhere
close to $34.9 million. This is money that we will use now to leverage the
money that we have available to us. There is quite a bit of dialogue that is
happening with our federal colleagues right now.
I
also want to make more mention about he talked quite a bit about Premier
Brad Wall who called the election just yesterday now. We have had quite a
bit of discussion as well. The fact is when you talk about the pipeline, as
an example, yes, there is no question, I think all of us in Eastern Canada
support the pipeline, but right now Quebec is having some issues with this.
To
get back to the resolution of where we are and the fact that you would see a
premier from Saskatchewan standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador, well, I
bring you back to just a few weeks ago to this discussion. Most of the
national media were reporting, what? They were reporting that the Province
of Alberta and the Province of Saskatchewan were having difficulty given the
situation that we are into with declining oil royalties.
I
can tell you now that it wasn't long that we met with a lot of the members
of the national media. If you listen to the discussion as it exists today,
there were three provinces that get included in this discussion every single
time when people speak to the media or when politicians from Ottawa speak.
They do talk about Alberta, they do talk about Saskatchewan and they do talk
about Newfoundland and Labrador.
It's
the first time in the history of this province we see the national media
have an understanding of the importance of our province right now. So I want
to thank my federal colleagues and thank people on this side of the House
that continue to raise (inaudible) we have in the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
I also want to say that
when you look at the situation that currently exists today I want to talk
a little bit about Alberta and Saskatchewan because that is the comparison
that we want to see. If you look at the Alberta budget right now, they
budgeted revenue of just over $43 billion. Their expense line is around $49
billion. Right now, based on the forecast that they put out on February 24th
of this year, they would anticipate a $6.3 billion deficit. Contrast that to
Saskatchewan, they put out their quarter on February 29th of revenues just
shy of $14 billion and expenses of $14.2 billion, therefore a $259 million
deficit. They anticipate even lowering that this year.
If
you compare that to the administration, the management and the planning that
we have seen in our province over the last 13 years, well, we have revenue
of about $6 billion and expenses of $8 billion and a deficit of $2 billion.
If you compare that to Alberta and Saskatchewan and you will tell that the
management and the planning for this province, given the volatility around
oil royalties, has been extremely different. The prior administration have
put this province in an unprecedented situation and Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians are feeling the impact of that, I will say.
It's
fine to say that you look to Ottawa as a solution, but the responsibility on
every Member in this House is to manage your own home first. Look after your
own affairs and be responsible for your own actions. I would question if the
prior administration is prepared to do that right now: look to Ottawa for it
to be totally an Ottawa solution. Well, Ottawa will be part of a solution,
but what we have to do, too, is make sure that we properly govern and we
properly manage our own affairs, get our own house in order first before we
look for support.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, there's one
other thing that I want to raise today because it is a concern about
equalization. Some of the stark realities are that when you come into a new
administration, this is the kind of information that you find.
Back
in 2005, there was an acknowledgement of $378 million in an overpayment on
the equalization 2005. Think about that, Mr. Speaker. There was $107
million of that repaid. We were overpaid, so what happens there is the
province would have to repay it.
We
started with $378 million. Mr. Speaker, $107 million of that was repaid,
which left an outstanding balance of $271 million. That outstanding balance
with the federal government was never repaid. We had unprecedented surpluses
in the history of our province, $25 billion in oil royalties and Atlantic
Accord money, and the previous administration did what? They ignored it,
except for the former premier. Guess what he did?
The
person that just stood up and questioned leadership on this side of the
House, what he did last year was he signed an agreement with the federal
government one that finally the federal government agreed with. What he
agreed to do was pay back the money for the next 10 years, starting in the
spring of 2016. After ignoring it for over 10 years, now, the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador are left on the hook to repay $271 million in an
overpayment that was acknowledged by the previous administration back in
2005. Completely ignored, and here we are, Newfoundland and Labrador, left
on the hook to pay back this equalization.
That
was the agreement. Finally, they were successful in signing an agreement
with the federal government. And what is it? To repay a loan based on an
overpayment on an equalization payment they knew about back in 2005.
Mr.
Speaker, the relationship with Ottawa and for people on this side of the
House, I will say it is one we will continue to foster and it is a
relationship we will continue to develop. Will we get everything we need as
a province? Well, maybe we won't. But I can tell you what, we will not be
shy of looking for and standing up for what Newfoundland and Labrador so
rightfully deserves, and we will do that. Every single person will do that,
and I challenge people on the opposite side of the House to be there with us
when we do that. We will continue those efforts and we will do that on a
daily basis.
I
will tell you one thing, what we will not do is we will not abdicate our
responsibilities; we will live up to and accept the responsibilities, and we
will not, as the previous administration did when we acknowledge what we
are responsible for, then, Mr. Speaker, I will say this, Members on this
side of the House, we will do it in a respectful manner. We will do it in a
professional manner, and we will not be leaving the outstanding balances and
the outstanding commitments to the next generation. We will deal with this
and we will deal with it, as I say, in a very meaningful way.
I am
very proud of Minister Foote and the job she is doing right now working for
Newfoundland and Labrador. You can expect, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker,
lots of good things will come to our province with the relationship we have.
I will tell you, long gone are the days of rhetoric, long gone are the days
of when you stand on the steps of Confederation Building and shout and rant,
because right now what is more important is that you get success in those
agreements, and we do that with the many meetings we have.
If
there ever comes a time when we see ourselves offside with the federal
Government of Canada, I can assure you we will stand up for Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly a privilege today to rise to speak to this motion,
a very important motion indeed. Looking at history in this great federation
of Canada and our particular circumstances today in regard to our finances
and a very resource-based province, obviously it is extremely important to
us, as we all know, here in the House. Certainly Canada as a whole is very
resource rich with natural resources. It's important in the economics of
Canada as a whole and certainly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Some
of the issues we face today in terms of the financial situation are tied to
world markets in regard to oil, the pricing of oil. Certainly world
commodity prices, particularly in the past number of months, the past years,
have gone to historic lows, have basically tanked. Fortunately, they've come
back in the last few weeks around the $40 a barrel, which is good to see.
But the decline has certainly been sudden; it's been steep and sustained,
and pretty much unpredictable.
As
many would say, internationally, it's almost a perfect storm. In other parts
of the world it's all interrelated. We see Europe was slow out of the
recession. We see the United States coming out of the recession now,
starting to produce more oil and gas, and get more self-sufficient in regard
to shale production. You look at the Dakotas and different states, the
amount of shale that is being produced through that process. That's
affecting the world market and the impact in terms of their supply and what
they have in their inventory.
China's rate of growth over the past number of years has slowed. A number of
years ago it was unprecedented, the growth in China, 7 or 8 per cent, which
was huge; but that's back again to a couple of percent. That's all affecting
issues in regard to oil.
Inventories now around the world are a glut on the market. There is not
enough economic activity to soak that up. So those are some of the things
that are happening globally now overall on this issue.
OPEC
itself in December agreed on their production cuts; they didn't do any. So
oil production states still cause challenges in regard to the overall volume
that is being produced in the world.
I
guess the context to put it in, Mr. Speaker, is that's out of everybody's
control and we need to adapt and try to do the best we can. It is certainly
out of our control in terms of the prices. Newfoundland and Labrador did not
cause the global issue in regard to the price of oil and we certainly can't
fix it, nor can any of the other oil producers in Canada: Alberta or
Saskatchewan. It's just part of a whole world commodity market that we've
involved with.
Being part of this great country of Canada, 10 provinces and three
territories, there are programs put in place by the federal government. And
that's a benefit of being part of a great country like Canada. There are
programs; there is assistance that is available. Historically, at varied
times, jurisdictions availed of that; other times, they don't. They don't
need to.
We
look back at the principles of equalization and what it's meant to do. In
1957, Canada created an Equalization Program to help the poor provinces of
the country deliver services at a level similar to the richer provinces.
That meant across the board that no matter where you lived in Canada, there
was always an opportunity for a comparable level of services and programs,
and that was dealt with through equalization. That is another great
attribute of Canada.
Certainly, when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982 by Pierre Trudeau
he ensured that equalization at that time was entrenched in the
Constitution.
Section 36(2) enshrined in the principle it is just a single sentence and
basically it describes exactly what equalization is all about. Parliament
and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making
equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient
revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at
reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
Mr.
Speaker, that is the fundamental principle behind equalization. In
Newfoundland and Labrador we received equalization up to 2008. To that
point, as we know, due to revenues and the calculation of the equalization
formula, we became ineligible at that time for the equalization. So that
made us, as we know, a have province in terms of the equalization formula.
Quite simply, we talk about revenues that were generated over the past
number of years from our royalties, basically through equalization, when you
come down, there is a sliding scale over the past 10 years. So as federal
dollars were pulled out of our Treasury, obviously, they had to be replaced
by provincial dollars. Over the past 10 years there is almost $10 million
have been replaced with provincial dollars as those federal dollars
retrieved and in 2008 we came off equalization.
In
the 1990s and the 2000s we received significant dollars: $1 billion in
equalization each and every year. That is certainly a huge sum, a large
amount of dollars. Well, you can imagine if that amount was coming to us
today, we would be in a much better position in terms of our financial
position.
In
any jurisdiction in Canada, based on their production, based on those global
factors, geopolitical factors that happened in the world, there are all
kinds of things that affect us that are not in our control. But being part
of an Equalization Program and being part of a country that has it, it means
that in time of need they adapt and the program can adapt so you could get
the true benefit from that. That is part of being Canadian. There is nothing
wrong with that.
At
times, various jurisdictions in Canada are part of the Equalization Program;
other times, they are not. Remember decades ago, the Province of Ontario was
the industrial heartland of Canada through manufacturing and through their
exports. Today we see them on equalization. That is fine; that is how the
program works. It balances through tough economic times to see jurisdictions
through those economic times. That rise and fall in revenue certainly makes
that happen.
When
we look at the principle, the nuts and bolts we say, of the federal
transfers, Ottawa has to figure out how to calculate those sufficient
revenues that I talked about when I spoke earlier about reasonable and
comparable levels of public service and those reasonable and comparable
levels of taxation.
That's where, as was mentioned earlier, I certainly acknowledge the Premier
when he mentioned about a very complex equalization formula and in the
legislation. Indeed it is. The piece of legislation, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Act, has many parts to it. Many of the items identified in the
legislation, we'd know well in this province or any jurisdiction in regard
to different programs that are available to us.
Part
II talks about stabilization. Part III is Administration Agreements,
including things like tax harmonization, several transfer payments. Part V
is other payments, the Canada Health Transfer.
So
within the context of that legislation is a whole range of programs that any
jurisdiction avails of. It gives us a list of formulas, a list of rules and
a list of regulations in terms of how that's administered. These rules are
changed or adaptive. I guess that's what we're talking about here today in
terms of the particular position the province may find itself in. That
within that program, within various aspects of it, whether it's the
stabilization side or somewhere else, it's a regulatory or a policy change
that could be adapted to meet certain circumstances of any jurisdictions in
Canada. That's what it's meant to do.
So
it's never a wrong thing to say we're going to go to the federal government
and have a discussion about a need we have at a particular time for a
province and how a current program can be adapted to do that. This program
allows it to happen. It is important that we lobby the federal government,
we advocate to the federal government, and we have that discussion.
I
congratulate the Premier he said about the good relationship he has with
the new prime minister; that's great. We have seven Liberal MPs in Ottawa,
so let's use that to move forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, it is great, so
let's see what the return is going to be. Let's use that and work on this
issue collectively and see where we can go with it, because that's what we
need to do. We need to work together to do it.
Equalization should be able to adapt with a year, within a shorter period of
time. The current status is it's almost five years by the time you get to a
three-year average, to a two-year review. It's pretty significant in terms
of being able to adapt to current circumstances. I think that's what we're
saying today.
Based on unprecedented changes in the resource-based industry like oil, it's
not just unique to Canada, around the world, that we should be able to be
adaptive within this formula to meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians as we move forward as being a part of Canada.
One
of the areas to look at would be the Stabilization Program which is within
the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, and that's one area that we're proposing that we
certainly look. That's what the motion speaks to, that we take a clear
direction on looking for that and looking for extra funding to come from
that.
As
well, the Stabilization Program is pretty outdated in terms of when it was
originally formulated several decades ago. The calculations look at per
capita of individual, and its $60 per capita per individual within a
jurisdiction. That was probably put in place several decades ago. Those are
the kinds of things we can look at to get modified, to bring it in line with
today's costs and expenditures. That would allow us to look at accessing
greater funds through the program.
Right now, I think the way it looks, based on some discussion in the past,
approximately $30 million would come to Newfoundland and Labrador under the
current arrangement. Obviously, that's not something that would be it's a
small amount but looking at meeting our needs, there's a greater discussion
needed to be had on how we can access greater funds to assist us through
this program.
We
look at the program as a whole, and other provinces in what they're seeing
in terms of dollars; $30 million is projected under the current arrangement,
what we would see in terms of accessing that program under the stabilization
fund. Other jurisdictions to avoid catastrophic budgetary decisions use
that money to offset those programs and services, the cost that I talked
about earlier that is guaranteed which is in this formula.
If
you look at jurisdictions, Nova Scotia this year will receive in
equalization approximately $1.7 billion. All of that kind of stuff,
sufficient revenues this will allow Nova Scotia to get sufficient
revenues, reasonably comparable levels of public service, reasonably
comparable levels of taxation, which, as I said earlier, is the ultimate
goal of equalization that's entrenched in the Constitution, which I said is
a tremendous asset as being part of this great country we call Canada.
New
Brunswick as well, about $1.7 billion this year for that same reason, to
assist them in terms of what they are doing. Manitoba, approximately $1.7
billion to meet those needs of revenues to provide the reasonable,
comparable level of public service, and that's so important.
That
means all jurisdictions, as I spoke earlier, this is a means to allow that
everybody across this great country is comparable in terms of the services
and what they receive, and to allow them to do that. That's in times of
economic difference in terms of their ability to raise revenues. We go
across this country in decades, and in the past number of years various
parts of the country, whether they're manufacturing, whether they're oil
producing, based on what's happening in the world, their abilities to drive
revenues could go up or down. That's what this fund is here to do.
What
we're saying through this motion is government, and collectively us, need
to, with the federal government, work collectively and say it's time to take
a look at this. We need to see a better return from equalization at this
time in terms of what's happened here. It needs to become more relevant,
more responsive.
Three, four or five years are not responsive to particular historic economic
downturns, we'll say. It's got to be more responsive and that's what we're
saying. I think through this motion and collectively, all of us, coming
together and supporting this motion, I think we can get there. I think we
can make it loud and clear that we want to work together. It's important to
work together to get us where we want to go.
Federal Minister Bill Morneau has recognized in the past our situation is
unusual and requires intervention. In the House of Commons he mentioned that
we are talking about how we can help people who are facing real challenges
across the country, middle-class families across the country, people in
Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. So there is a
recognition by the federal Minister of Finance that, indeed, there is an
issue here to be dealt with.
A
Saskatchewan MP referenced the fact that leftover money for infrastructure
does not make up for the unfairness in the formula. So we need to lobby to
make sure this is adaptive, it can meet the current needs. Three, four or
five years is not just going to cut it and it shouldn't. It's a part of
being Canadian. It's part of being a member of the Canadian federation and
we certainly should get a response to it.
I
ask all Members today to carefully consider the motion and certainly support
the motion. At the end of the day, this is about the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It's not about any political stripe, but it's
about the province. It's about working together to achieve what we need to
achieve in our great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
The
hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Once
again, Madam Speaker, I stand in this House as an honour. I thank the people
of Humber Bay of Islands for electing me in the House of Assembly.
This
is the first opportunity, Madam Speaker, to welcome the people who were
elected for the first time to this hon. House, the House of Assembly. I can
tell you that it's an honour and it's a pleasure. If you look back it's
unique, not a lot of people get the opportunity to serve in this hon. House
of Assembly. So to all the new Members in this House I see one in the
Opposition, I welcome him also, to all the Members on this side: enjoy your
time. We're here to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam
Speaker. We're here to try to help make this province a better place.
I
honestly believe, and I said it before, every person in this House is here
to make the lives better for everybody, no matter what side of the House
you're on. Sometimes, Madam Speaker, we may differ, but I just want to let
everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know we will work
together when we need to as a government. We will work with the Opposition,
we will work with the Third Party, because when we got elected, we got
elected to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, every single
person in this province.
I
congratulate everybody on being elected.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Speaker, I just
heard the Member for Ferryland, his speech, and I agree with a lot of the
things he said.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
I honestly did. We've got
to work together on this, Madam Speaker. The only thing, he should have
advised his leader. He should have advised his leader before he got up
what a nice speech you just gave and how we all got to work together, but
you listen to his leader almost being condescending.
We
hear Brad Wall, we hear the Premier of Alberta, but where's our Premier? Do
you know that our Premier, the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, had more meetings with the Prime Minister of Canada than the last
three premiers combined?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
They stand up, Madam
Speaker, they stand up and say, well, it's time for him to stand up, be like
Brad Wall, stand up and speak for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Madam Speaker, consultation, you go up and explain a case. That's how you
get things done. It looks nice going down, ripping the flag down it looks
good, it looks great. Everybody wants to get behind you, how we're
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I'll
just tell you about that, Madam Speaker. I'll just tell you about ripping
down that flag. I always remember this, and a lot of people I just want to
make sure I got the figures right here. I heard everybody coming down,
coming off the steps down there
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Speaker, here's
what we got: we got a $2 billion advance from the Atlantic Accord. That's
what we got. All this big idea that we got this $2 billion extra cash coming
into the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Members opposite
over there cheering. Either you did know and you cheered and misled the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, or you didn't know because they kept
you in the dark.
I'll
just give you some facts here, Madam Speaker. The $2 billion that came in,
it was advance payment in July 2005. Year ending March 31, 2006, there was
$322 million put aside for that year. March 31, 2007, $219,218,000 was put
aside from the Atlantic Accord. March 31, 2009, there was $152,785,000. The
province no longer qualified for equalization for the remaining balance of
the $2 billion advanced to be recognized, and they were out there telling
our Premier that you should stand up for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. I always said one of the biggest flaws, one of the biggest
fallacies, is when it came down to that, when we were fighting for that.
Madam Speaker, I have to say, you were part of the government. The Member
for Corner Brook was part of the government who signed that and gave that
money, and everybody knew. The Member for Corner Brook even stood up and
said it was an advance on the Atlantic Accord. The premier at the time and
all Members opposite stood up, and you're here trying to tell our Premier
you have to stand up for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker
AN HON. MEMBER:
Madam Speaker.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I have to say if you want to follow on with your tactics
you heard the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Ferryland, he
spoke very well on it.
If
you want to listen to the Leader of the Opposition and I don't know who
can remember this. Can you remember the last time he was in Ottawa? He stood
out in minus 20 or so, and what did he say? You can't trust Stephen Harper.
What a way to build bridges. What a way to go up and have consultation. What
a way to go up and sit down and say let's work together for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. That's what he did.
Madam Speaker, our Premier brought it up today, they are trying to come
MR. KENT:
(Inaudible).
MR. JOYCE:
The Member for Mount
Pearl North said he put something into it. I hope what he puts into it is
honesty about the hospital in Corner Brook.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
That's what I hope he
puts into it, Madam Speaker. Honesty in that water to let the people know
about the hospital in Corner Brook.
This
is a major issue, Madam Speaker, for all the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. This is something you can't stand up, as the Leader of the
Opposition is trying to say, that you're not fighting hard enough. This is
not something you can stand up, this is a long-standing process, Madam
Speaker.
The
next time that Newfoundland and Labrador and it's because the lag when
you're in a deficit for three years, with the oil revenues dropping for
three years and there's a lag, the next time right now that we're going to
be qualified for equalization, I think, is 2018-2019.
AN HON. MEMBER:
2020.
MR. JOYCE:
2019-2020, yes.
Madam Speaker, we can stand up here and the Leader of the Opposition can
stand up, but what we need to do is we need to work with our counterparts.
We need to work with the federal government. We need to work with everybody
possible to change the equalization formula, if need be, to reflect the
realities of all the provinces and territories in Canada.
Madam Speaker, there's another thing that I took offence to from the Leader
of the Opposition, that our seven MPs aren't doing their jobs. I was shocked
by that because if anybody knows Judy Foote
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
she doesn't take the
back steps with nobody for Newfoundland and Labrador. If people know Judy
Foote like I know Judy Foote and I won't even get into Yvonne Jones
because I don't have long enough in the day to talk about her and about how
she stands up for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Madam Speaker, Judy Foote will work with anybody to better the lives of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
This is what we need. We
don't need the Leader of the Opposition standing up and trying to demean our
Premier who just got in three months ago, and all of a sudden saying you're
not standing up with Brad Wall, you're not doing this. The approach that the
previous government took just didn't work it just didn't work.
There's another issue I have, Madam Speaker. They're all saying this
happened overnight. There were two opportunities, I think. It's done every
five years, I think, the Equalization Program. How come we never heard of
this before? Do you know why? The biggest fallacy was when they got the $2
billion. Everybody said, well we still have our equalization going on until
2012. It wasn't. They had it they had it.
For
the Members opposite all of a sudden saying, now we have to go up there and
we have to start dragging down flags, we have to stand up in the snowbank in
minus 20 and tell the Prime Minister of Canada that you can't trust him,
you'll never trust him again. Madam Speaker, it just doesn't work that way.
It sounds good and it feels good, but did you get any results? That's the
question you have to ask yourself.
This
has nothing to do, Madam Speaker, with who's going to shout the loudest and
who's going to haul down the flag the quickest. This is about getting
results. I can assure you that our Premier has already had several meetings
with the prime minister of Canada, and I can assure you he's had many
meetings with all of our MPs. I know the MPs for Newfoundland and Labrador
just last week were in Corner Brook. They sat down with all of us in Corner
Brook to discuss all the issues we had. I can assure you that Newfoundland
and Labrador is well represented.
We
can work with all the other provinces in Canada, Madam Speaker, but we can't
do it alone. I know our Premier has been saying that from day one. He said
we have to work in a union with all the provinces and territories in Canada,
and mainly, the prime minister. This doesn't happen overnight. There will be
some discussions on changing the equalization formula, and I know we're
going to be well represented at the table.
So I
ask the Opposition and when I was on the Opposition, Madam Speaker, I
always said there are times you need to fight, there are times you need to
stand up and that is your role as the Opposition. There are also times you
need to stand with the government to fight together, to bring it in a
certain way. That doesn't mean going out in the media and trying to
embarrass somebody.
We
did it with the shrimp. I know that committee has started up again. We did
it before on many occasions. We did it with the all-party on the mental
health issues, Madam Speaker. This is what we need to do. There are times
when we need to come together as people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Forget the politics. In four years' time you'll have a chance to get rid of
us, or the people of the province will have a chance to get rid of us, Madam
Speaker. Until then, it is very crucial that we work together. Right now, as
we all know with the drop in oil prices and other issues in the province
and Alberta, which affects Newfoundland, people not working there are
major financial problems facing us, the people of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I
heard our Premier mention, Madam Speaker, this didn't happen overnight. The
Opposition, some would say and I'm one of them who will say that they let
it move on. The last two opportunities they had they never brought it up.
They never discussed it. It wasn't an issue. Now all of a sudden, three
months in, it's this big issue that we're not doing enough as a government.
Madam Speaker, I know my time is up, but I can tell you one thing: I know
the Premier of the province. I know him well; I know him as a person. For
the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and try to demean his position here
because he's not standing up with Brad Wall, if anybody ever heard when
they were bringing up Saskatchewan and bringing up Alberta, Newfoundland was
right in the midst of it. They were right in the midst, Newfoundland and
Labrador.
When
Ottawa talked about the financial crisis, they were talking about
Newfoundland and Labrador also. So if the Leader of the Opposition wants to
try to demean our Premier because he is not standing up for the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker, he's the only one in this province
who doesn't notice what our Premier is doing. He's doing it in consultation
with our seven MPs and he's doing it in consultation with Judy Foote, who is
our liaison and Cabinet minister.
We
will make changes. It will take time, Madam Speaker. So I ask the Opposition
and I ask the Third Party we all need to work together. The financial
problems of Newfoundland and Labrador are grave. We can point and throw mud
at each other all day long; it won't solve anything.
It
feels good standing up here bantering back and forth, Madam Speaker, but it
won't change anything. I call on the Leader of the Opposition, instead of
throwing over all the mud, let's sit down and let's try to work together
like we did on the shrimp, like we did on the All-Party Committee on Mental
Health.
I
say to the Leader of the Opposition: Here is your opportunity. You asked us
to work with you before. We did on the shrimp. We did on the mental health.
Here is your opportunity now to stand with our Premier of Newfoundland and
Labrador, who is standing with all the other premiers in Canada and the
territories to say let's work together, let's make changes to reflect the
realities of all the people in Canada, Madam Speaker, all throughout Canada.
I call upon the Leader of the Opposition.
I
will say one thing to our Premier: You can listen to what you like from the
Leader of the Opposition. I can tell you he's leading this party over here.
He's leading this government, Madam Speaker, and every step of the way he is
informing this caucus of what is happening.
The
Leader of the Opposition, here is the opportunity to come on board and help
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We encourage you to come over and help us
because we need your help. We need everybody's help in Newfoundland and
Labrador. We need everybody, Madam Speaker. That is what we need and that is
what we need to do. We support our Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much,
Madam Speaker.
I am
delighted to stand this afternoon and speak to the private Member's motion.
I don't know if I'll be as colourful as my colleague from Humber Bay of
Islands, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Service Newfoundland and
Labrador. Entertaining or not, I do have things to say and I look forward to
saying them. I hope I will be able to do that clearly.
The
private Member's motion we have in front of us is interesting. We are in a
difficult time in this province; there is no doubt about it. But we're in a
situation that has been caused because of wasting an opportunity. That's
what we're into right now in the province.
When
you look at the first part of the resolution, that we will ask the
Government of Canada to recognize the impact of the steep fall in oil
revenues on our province and that it consider financial support to our
province in order to prevent deep cuts in services to the people of the
province, I mean that's right; it is a serious situation. But it means that
we had poor management going on when we had oil money coming into this
province hand over fist. That's what I mean when I talk about a wasted
opportunity.
The
wasted opportunity is there should have been long-term planning. Neither
party in this Assembly, either the governing party or the Official
Opposition, seem to understand what long-term planning is. When the current
Official Opposition was in government and the oil money that was coming in
was something that was unprecedented in our province, then we should have
been looking at the long term. We should have been doing what good financial
advisors say to individuals who start making a lot of money for the first
time: Don't spend it all; make plans and make sure that you have money in
the bank as you're also using the money because, if you don't, you could end
up in trouble.
On a
personal financial level, I hear people talking about young workers,
especially young men, who start making big money in the oil fields, for
example, over in Alberta. They start spending and they buy two or three
vehicles and money is coming out through their ears and they don't plan for
the future. Well, you know, that's what happened here in this province. It's
a bit embarrassing that we have a resolution that's recognizing the mess
that we've been put in.
I
don't hear anything from the other side now, from the government side,
that's showing that they understand any better what that mess is in terms of
our responsibility for it. Now, that's not saying I'm against the
resolution; it's not. But we have to be honest about why this resolution is
here.
When
it comes to the equalization part, we all understand and some of the
former speakers have pointed it out how complicated the whole Equalization
Program and Fiscal Stabilization Program are. They're not simple; they're
extremely complicated. I agree that there needs to be a review of those
programs.
When
we, for example, became a have province, what wasn't recognized and isn't
recognized in the formula is that we had been decades and more than decades
of being a really poor province. People in the province were poor. The
province itself was poor. We had failing infrastructure in every way. We had
schools that were falling apart. Our roads were in a mess. We still have
roads in a mess. We have a school that is being closed on the Northern
Peninsula, if the school board gets away with doing it, closing a school
with a road coming out of that school that you wouldn't even send a cart
over. You wouldn't even send a cart over with a horse pulling it, the road
is so bad. So we still have a bad situation in this province.
There is absolutely no doubt that when money started coming in there was a
lot that had to be done, but it should have been done carefully and with
planning, instead of having a government that started to spend like drunken
sailors because that's what went on, without planning, without care.
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's not nice.
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, whether it's nice
or not, it's true. It's a reality, so you're going to have to accept that
reality. There was more than one premier involved with that. There was a
history of premiers involved with that. One in particular who loved to spend
and who didn't do any long-term planning and who went off and left a mess in
the hands of his own colleagues, as far as that goes. That's a reality.
Those things are realities. Let's name the realities.
So
that's what we're dealing with. We should, in actual fact, be having a
feeling of shame that we wasted the golden opportunity when the price of oil
was where it was. It may never reach there again. So we have wasted that
opportunity. What do we do?
Yes,
we can say that we want to have a review of the formulas, a review of the
Equalization Program and Fiscal Stabilization Program, and I think we
should. I really encourage the government to vote for this and to really put
that on the table and say that they're going to work for it, but we know
that's not going to happen overnight. Change is not going to happen
overnight. So we need to look at the present.
We
do know that the federal government, with the provincial governments, is
looking at the whole infrastructure funding. So we are going to get money
coming in to help with that part, but what else it is? Are there other
things that we are missing?
I
think this resolution is actually missing an important thing that we need to
be looking at. What are the other ways in which the provinces receive money
from the federal government? What are other ways in which we receive money
from the federal government?
The
big one, of course, is through our Canada Health Transfer, and that is
something that does exist. From 2004 to 2014 we had a Health Accord between
the federal government and the provinces that guaranteed a certain level of
federal health transfers to each province with a 6 per cent increase every
year.
That
Health Accord expired in 2014. So what has happened is we are now under a
formula that was imposed on the provinces by the then federal government. It
wasn't a new formula that was worked out between the federal government and
the provinces; it was actually imposed by the Harper government, which was
the government of the day. The new formula which was put in place is going
to cost our province, over the next 10 years, $491 million. So $491 million
more will have to come out of our provincial coffers if we are going to
maintain the services in this province that are needed in health care.
If
we are going to restructure our health care system to be a community-based
health care system offering primary care on a community level, we are going
to have to spend almost another half billion dollars out of the provincial
coffers because of what was done in 2014 when the new formula was put in
place.
So
where is our government right now on this? I am not hearing very much from
our provincial government. I am not hearing anything from the Premier. I am
not hearing anything from the Minister of Health and Community Services on
this.
The
health ministers met in January of this year and health transfers were
discussed. We got that through the media. We know that British Columbia
proposed tying health care funding to demographics so that provinces with a
larger proportion of seniors would get more support. I think that is a good
thing, but not everybody at that table agreed to it. Where was our province?
Did our province fight that? It is more than demographics with regard to
seniors that we need to look at, because one of the reasons why our per
capita spending is higher than other parts of the country is because we have
such a small population spread out over such a land mass. We all know that.
We say it over and over, and it's a reality. That is a reality.
So
why should a formula not take into consideration that it has to be more
expensive for Newfoundland and Labrador to run its health care system than
it does for Nova Scotia, for example, or for PEI, for example, or New
Brunswick just looking at Atlantic Canada? You can't compare their cost to
ours on a per capita level when you look at it from the perspective, not
just of demographics and that's one that's really important because of our
growing number of seniors but also because of the geographic place in
which our small population finds itself.
So
if we're looking at the present situation, and we want to deal with things
in the present and we want to try to help ourselves financially in the
present, we have something with the federal government the health
transfers that is in existence, that is going to cost a lot of money to us
in Newfoundland and Labrador, approximately $42 million a year because of
the new formula, and where is this government? Are they saying anything
publicly about it? I don't hear them in the media talking about it.
We
don't know what was said at the table when the health ministers met in
January. We do know the federal minister did commit to working with the
provinces and territories toward a long-term funding arrangement. She said
she is open to looking at the different circumstances and starting points of
jurisdictions, but we have no timeline for that agreement. Is that something
that can be put in place this year? Is that something that can help this
year's budget? This is what we should be looking at.
Apparently, they are going to meet again in a few months. I invite the
Minister of Health and Community Services to give us an idea of what the few
months is. Did they send up a plan for looking at the health transfers? Was
a plan of action put in place so that between January and the next meeting
something is happening around this, or is it all on hold until the ministers
meet again?
This
is something real that we, if we're talking about, as the resolution does in
the first phrase, trying to get the federal government to give financial
support to our province to help our people, well, making the health
transfers work for our province would be a big first step in doing that.
They're not just going to take money out of another pot over there somewhere
and say, oh, we'll just give a half billion dollars to Newfoundland. It
isn't going to happen that way.
The
money has to come out from programs that are in existence. We already know
that money will be coming from infrastructure, as I've already said, but
let's make this work. I'm calling upon the government to really become very
proactive with the federal prime minister and with the federal minister of
health to make the health transfers work to save $42 million a year
approximately out of our budget by making sure that the health transfer can
work for us, that instead of losing over $420 million over the next 10
years, we will not only save it but also have more money coming into us. We
know Ottawa can do that. We do know the money is there for that to happen,
and we have to stop Ottawa from saving money in the health transfers off the
backs of our people.
I
want to hear more; I want to hear more from the government side of the
House. I want to hear that the Premier and the Minister of Health I don't
care how often the Premier has met with the prime minister to this date,
that's his job. I want them to meet again. I want him to do it with the
Minister of Health. I want him to demand that Canada sit down with the
provinces and territories and negotiate a new 10-year health accord, one
that is fair to our province and one that takes into account why our per
capita spending is so high.
Our
per capita spending is not higher than other parts of the country. It's not
high because we're wasting money. It's not high because we haven't skimmed
things down to the bone, because we have. It's high because of the reality
we're dealing with.
I
call on the Premier, I call upon the Minister of Health, to not just sit
back, not just wait until the next meeting. Go and speak for our province.
Go and push for real action from the federal government in putting in place
a new health accord. It's being demanded by people right across the country,
and I'm looking for leadership from this government in doing that.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's
a pleasure to rise in this hon. House today. It's the first opportunity that
I've had since we're back in session to speak to a motion and to address
this House, so I want to take a quick moment to congratulate all hon.
Members who were elected in the recent election that took place on November
30. We're back to work. It's great to see debate underway in the House of
Assembly.
This
is an important motion that a Member of our caucus is pleased to put forward
today, Madam Speaker. It's about modernizing federal-provincial fiscal
arrangements looking at the Equalization Program, but also the Fiscal
Stabilization Program, looking at all federal transfers, all funding
arrangements with the federal government to find out how they can be
modernized to help us in the long term, but also to help us with this
short-term financial crisis that we're dealing with.
I'm
very concerned, though, by media reports today, Madam Speaker. When the
Premier was questioned yesterday about these funding relationships with the
federal government the question was posed to him: Will he stand up and
fight? His answer was: It is what it is.
To
me, if you say it is what it is, it implies that you've given up, that
you've rolled over, you're going to take what you've been given and it is
what it is. So we now have a Premier that is so cozy and comfortable with
the Trudeau Liberals that after only four months he's thrown in the towel
and he's given up, and it is what it is.
One
of the Members opposite talked about all the wonderful meetings they've had,
photo ops, selfies and trips to Ottawa. In fact, it's very entertaining,
Madam Speaker. Unfortunately, we've got the first Premier in the history
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Thank you for your
protection, Madam Speaker.
We've got the first Premier in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador,
since Confederation, who's not prepared to stand up and fight for what is
just and what is right for our province.
That
wasn't the only statement that the Premier made yesterday that's concerning,
Madam Speaker. In response to that question will you stand up and fight,
will you push the federal government for action on these funding
arrangements he said, we've got to do this on our own.
Today we heard about the cozy relationship with the seven Liberal MPs who, I
guess, also aren't going to stand up for us. The Throne Speech yesterday
talked about the new relationship with the federal government. So what does
that new relationship consist of? Well it consists of it is what it is, and
we've got to do this on our own. We're just going to roll over and take what
we've been given. We'll have tea parties, socials and frequent gatherings
with our Liberal friends in Ottawa, but we're not going to stand up and
fight for Newfoundland and Labrador. That's concerning.
When
pressed even further, Madam Speaker, the third thing that the Premier said
yesterday was there will be discussions in the future, so no attempt to take
action. No commitment to stand up. No attempt to push the federal government
for much-needed support in light of the unique circumstances that we find
ourselves in.
It
is what it is. We've got to do this on our own. There will be discussions in
the future. That's the stronger tomorrow that the Liberals are offering,
Madam Speaker. That's the kind of leadership we're seeing from the new
administration after four months. Giving up after four months is rather
perplexing and concerning.
To
today's motion, let's just think about what would be possible, though, if we
were prepared to stand up and do what's right and fight for the province.
What if Ottawa were to deliver the two things that we're calling for in this
resolution? What would change if we were to see fairness in the formula, and
in the various formulas and funding relationships? What if we also got the
immediate relief that we so desperately require? Also, what consequences
could we avoid and what benefits could we achieve?
That's what we should be asking ourselves today as we prepare for this vote.
Based on the debate I've heard so far, I fear that Members opposite are not
going to support this motion to stand up and pursue more support from the
federal government. If that happens, it would be a travesty I feel, Madam
Speaker.
Let's talk about the benefit of immediate relief should we be able to secure
support working with the federal government. If we do get sufficient
immediate relief, we could avoid deep cuts in services. We could avoid
outrageous tax increases. We could avoid unsustainable levels of borrowing
at high interest rates. The benefits of all of that would be very
significant.
Think about what's been put on the table. Not only do we have all the empty
Liberal promises put on the table that were rehashed in the Throne Speech
yesterday, but core programs and services that have helped people for years
and years in our province could be on the chopping block as a result of
these fiscal circumstances we find ourselves in. Imagine if the threat of
those cuts were removed because we were able to reach some kind of agreement
with Ottawa and renegotiate some of those arrangements and formulas.
The
Finance Minister and the new government are talking cuts in the order of 30
per cent by department. That would be absolutely devastating. I don't always
agree with the Members from the New Democratic Party, but fear is a good
word to use. Every public employee in the province right now is fearful of
what those cuts entail. Madam Speaker, 30 per cent over the next number of
years, there's nobody who won't feel that. In fact, the Minister of Finance
has said that some of the measures will be immediate, some will come later
in the year and more will come in 2017. So the uncertainty will remain for
those that survive the first rounds of cuts.
Think about what that lack of certainty and lack of stability does for your
workforce, for stress levels, for mental health, for employees' ability to
focus on delivering services people need that will truly benefit people in
the province. I think highlighting that fear is legitimate, Madam Speaker.
Which public employee, though, is going to invest in a new home or a new car
or appliances, or having another child, if, for the next few years, as a
result of the uncertainty and as a result of these insufficient fiscal
relationships that there's an axe hovering overhead for the next number of
years. When you have a nervous economy, that lack of confidence ripples
outward and it affects the entire community.
The
fears of those nasty consequences become self-fulfilling because fear
actually chokes the growth we need to get through this crisis. That's why we
need support from Ottawa. That's why we can't be afraid to negotiate. That's
why we can't be afraid to stand up to the federal government.
If a
federal infusion helps the province produce a budgetary plan that doesn't
involve those deep cuts or doesn't instill the fears of cuts to come, then
imagine what impact that would have on consumer confidence. Imagine the
impact that would have on investor confidence.
As
the Premier pointed out today, we did promote an approach of attrition as
opposed to layoffs. That should be the strategy of choice. With the right
support from the federal government I believe that could still be achieved.
Then employees could really focus on delivering high-quality services to the
people of the province rather than living in fear for the next number of
years.
The
plan that we delivered last fall was to reduce the public sector
incrementally through natural attrition. I think that is still possible if
we're prepared to work with Ottawa and achieve a new kind of fiscal
relationship with Ottawa. Then public employees can get back to making
investments in their communities.
Everybody will feel the impact. There will be a huge ripple effect in our
economy. Car dealers will notice the impact. Home builders will notice the
impact. Realtors will notice the impact. Retailers will notice the impact.
Corner stores will notice the impact.
A
very large number of people in this province earn their living from the
Provincial Treasury. That is the reality. Either directly or indirectly,
there are a vast number of people in this province that do earn a living
from the Provincial Treasury.
Some
say we need to adjust that balance. On this side of the House we agree. We
agree that we need to strike a new balance, but the way to do that is not
through massive layoffs. Massive layoffs will be unavoidable if we're not
able to secure much-needed support from Ottawa.
Unfortunately, the approach from the new Premier and the new government is
it is what it is; we've got to do this on our own. Instead of dealing with
it now, his comment yesterday is there will be discussions at some point in
the future.
Mr.
Madam Speaker I almost did it, too. Madam Speaker, Wade Locke just
completed an analysis in which he said a program of layoffs to reduce the
deficit cannot be done without extreme hardship on those employees and
without throwing the economy in a huge recession.
So
imagine if we take an economy that's already been battered by bottomed out
oil revenues and add a huge recession that's caused by massive public
service layoffs, that won't leave Newfoundland and Labrador stronger. We
won't achieve that better, stronger tomorrow we were promised. We won't be
positioned for growth and diversification of the economy. It's actually
going to compound the problem, and it's going to put us into a downward
spiral.
It'll be the 90s all over again and there are some people in this House
that probably remember the 90s under the previous Liberal administration.
Massive layoffs in the fisheries and then there were massive layoffs in the
public sector, and a decade later you could still see the devastation.
Right now at this point in our history and it is a challenging time in our
history, Madam Speaker we can't afford to make the situation worse. So we
need an immediate federal infusion of sufficient quantity that will avoid
that scenario and actually leave us stronger, which we all want.
That's why the emergency infusion is so important; it gets us back on our
feet sooner. Ultimately, the federal government, I would argue, Ottawa, also
benefits from that approach. We'll do it if the Premier's not prepared to do
so. Someone ought to make that case to the federal government. That case
needs to be made consistently, it needs to be made clearly and it needs to
be made strongly.
The
case we need to make is investing in the province now avoids making us a
perpetual burden in the future. Instead of taking that stand, the Premier's
approach is we've got to do it on our own, it is what it is, and there will
be maybe some discussions in the future.
We
don't want to be reliant again like we were for decades in the past. We want
to be self-reliant, and we want to bridge funding through the revenue crisis
that will keep us on the path of self-reliance.
Back
in 2009 there was a global recession happening, and we took the very
approach I'm suggesting here today and that's being suggested by the Leader
of the Opposition with this resolution and it worked. It made a real
difference. When others question the $25 billion we managed, remember a
chunk of that spending occurred during that global recession in 2009 and in
2010, and it wasn't money that was wasted. Wade Locke was not the only one
to acknowledge that. Mark Carney, who was then the Governor of the Bank of
Canada, came to our province in 2009 and applauded our government for the
approach that we took at the time. He went so far as to say we were an
example for the rest of the country.
So
infrastructure investments kept communities moving forward. They kept
consumers spending. They kept private sector investments continuing and our
economy grew. If it wasn't for the huge drop in oil revenues in recent
months, over the last year or two, we'd be soaring today. The drop in oil
prices is our new recession. We can pretend that low oil is the new
permanent reality. We can let our economy die and we just simply say, well,
it is what it is. Or, Madam Speaker, we can treat the situation we face as a
temporary storm. With bridge financing, with a new relationship, a true new
relationship with the federal government, we can weather and emerge from
that stronger. I think both approaches are self-fulfilling.
If
you let the economy shrivel, it will shrivel; but if you invested in growth,
the economy will grow. We have to make a strong case to Ottawa because the
oil-producing, equalization non-receiving provinces have a direct stake in
lobbying for federal relief funding. So if we three provinces don't stand up
for ourselves and for one another, no one else will stand up and fight for
us.
I am
really disappointed to hear in this hon. House today that our new Premier is
not prepared to stand up. He is simply saying it is what it is, we might
have some discussions in the future, and we've got to go it on our own. If
we take that approach, it is going to be a devastating situation for many
years to come. So let's not sacrifice our future. Let's stand and let's
fight together, as some Members on both sides have suggested, instead of
simply saying it is what it is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I realize my
time is almost up.
When
it comes to formula reform, only this province can make this province's case
and we need to do so. Equalization is supposed to be up for renegotiation.
We've got to stand up; otherwise, it could be devastating. We became a have
province by standing up. Failure to fight will jeopardize our future.
So
right now, we need relief funding and that requires a strenuous fight. So
let's get on with it and let's just not simply say it is what it is. Let's
stand up and fight for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, as I have had the opportunity to hear the debate this afternoon, I
think it is important as an MHA, as a Member of this hon. House, as a Member
of the government caucus, as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, that we set
the record straight on a couple of things.
I
can assure you that the Members on this side opposite, led by our Premier,
are in fact quite the contrary to the Members' opposite comments
standing up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
We are standing up in
the face of an unprecedented fiscal leftover, from an administration that
was so focused on its own political survival versus what was important to
the public sector, what was important to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in
their homes.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll start with this one. I was stunned yesterday with the Leader
of the Official Opposition when he said in his comments that they were proud
that they had paid their own way. I believe that's the exact quote that the
Leader of the Official Opposition said. I think his words were we're paying
our own way.
As
our Premier has mentioned earlier today, this is the same group who knew
they had a liability of some $271 million related to equalization
overpayments, and punted it into the future without one thought to creating
a legacy fund to pay for the purchases they wanted to make during their
administration.
Mr.
Speaker, the Opposition likes to continue to talk about this problem and
this fiscal reality that we're being faced with as it's because of the oil
and it's because oil prices fell. Well, I'd like to remind the Members
opposite that for their last budget, which was fiscal 2015-16, that in order
for that budget to have ever been balanced, they would have needed oil to be
sold for $167 a barrel $167.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, I believe that people of Newfoundland and Labrador are coming
out in droves to participate in an honest, frank, open discussion about the
reality of the situation that we are faced with in our province. Many of my
neighbours and friends, our neighbours and friends, the entire province,
understand that the problem we are facing didn't get created because of oil.
It has been exacerbated by oil, but it certainly wasn't created.
Mr.
Speaker, expenditures for the former administration from 2010 to 2016,
compared to other jurisdictions, increased and I share this with everybody
36 per cent, 36 per cent, 36 per cent, 32 per cent, 32 per cent, 32 per
cent, 34 per cent over six years. That's the total expenditure per capita
increase that this Opposition here stands in the House of Assembly and
continues to try to justify, even though the people of the province sent a
very clear message on November 30 that they expect a government that is
going to provide much stronger leadership and better management than the
government that was here before.
The
Member who spoke earlier said that he pontificated about layoffs were
inevitable and unavoidable. Well I can assure the Member opposite that I
take very seriously, our Premier takes very seriously, our government takes
very seriously the valuable work of our public sector and we intend to do
everything we can to make sure that the best decisions are made to deal with
the fiscal reality. We're not going to make knee-jerk reactions. We're not
going to make the decisions that the former administration made in its dying
days to continue to waste taxpayers' money, and we'll look forward to
continuing to reveal those discussions here in the House as the debate moves
on.
This
situation we're in goes back to their inability, the former administration's
inability to plan for the future. I find it ironic that the Member opposite
actually spoke he used the term, we should be looking for bridge
financing. Now, Mr. Speaker, 86 days today I have had the privilege, with my
colleagues, of working in our administration, and for those 86 days we have
collectively worked tirelessly to understand the depth and breadth of the
situation we've dealing with and the facts.
I
can assure you that if the people of the province believe the Member
opposite understands exactly what the term bridge financing means, I'll look
forward to his explanations in this House when I continue to challenge him
on the financial decisions that they made over the last number of years.
Mr.
Speaker, there's no doubt that this situation is extremely difficult for all
of us. It is difficult for all of our families. It's difficult for the
community. It's difficult for our workforce. That is why it is important for
us to make sure as we're making the decisions; as the Premier has said
today, we will make those decisions based on evidence, based on data and
based on the facts.
I
hear the Member opposite taking great pains she's taking great pains in
heckling me over a comment that she believes I said in the House here. I
guess what I would say to that Member, if she believes this situation is
about comedy
AN HON. MEMBER:
She thinks it's
funny.
MS. C. BENNETT:
and she thinks it's
funny, I'm hoping that they're really appreciative of the fact that they are
sitting in Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the
Member opposite also talked about the need for an economy that's robust. For
years, Members on this side of the House have challenged the former
administration about having an economy that was diversified and an economy
that was based on more than oil royalties. The Members opposite continued to
talk about how great the economy was they were creating. Well, I'm not sure
the people of the province today who are coming out to have discussions with
our government have that same confidence that they had.
This
is the same people on that side who stood up here and told the people of the
province everything was going to be fine. It's going to be great. I'm not
prepared to do anything other than what our Premier has said we will do, and
that's to be open and frank and honest with the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
We will continue to
work with the federal government to ensure that we take advantage of every
single opportunity to partner with the federal government and to find
opportunities to enhance and empower our economy to be even stronger than it
is today.
We
certainly won't leave applications unsigned as we race to put political
signs up, like the Members opposite did when they didn't commit to a funding
application that would have seen some $30 million go into communities in
Newfoundland and Labrador that they left undone. That doesn't speak to the
integrity of making decisions that are in the best interests of the people
of the province.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleagues in this House continue to work every day to make sure
that we will create the environment for families and people to feel
successful, hopeful about the future of our province. We will fix the mess
that was left for us as an administration, we will fix the financial
situation that we have been presented with and we will fix and plan that
this will never, ever happen again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Never again.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe the people of the province somebody said to me once the
electorate are never wrong. I believe that today's private Member's
resolution is a testament and reinforces what the people of the province
knew back on November 30. They knew the best idea that people could come up
with in that administration was to get somebody else to fix it and not
accept accountability for the problem that they, in fact, created.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to supporting my colleagues and voting on this PMR
in a few minutes. I look forward to continuing to have discussions in this
House about the things that we will do to recover and clean up what was left
on behalf of the Members opposite.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition to close debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
didn't expect the Member to not use up all of her time. I apologize for
being caught a little off guard. I expected she'd want to go way beyond 15
minutes, but she hasn't. She chose not to use up her time today on this
important matter.
I
thank you for acknowledging me. I'd like to just start very briefly by
thanking all of the Members who entered in the debate today and who have
brought their viewpoints. Some of them I'm going to reference in my closing
comments. Now that we've been here for a couple of hours, Mr. Speaker, I
think it's quite clear. For those of us who are returning, it's like we
never left in many ways.
The
Minister of Municipal Affairs continues to be his usual entertaining self
and liking to take his shots and provide his viewpoint in his way. After
many years I am glad to see now he has made it to Cabinet and has a
different role in government. I thought we would probably see a little bit
of a different Member today than we have seen in the past, but his old self
is still around.
Also
interesting as I sit here this afternoon is listening to what we came quite
accustomed to before, being the condescending remarks and comments off
camera and off microphone from the Member who is now the Minister of
Education, and even condescending remarks around employees as well. We have
seen that in the past as well and he was doing that again this afternoon, so
we see he is back to his old self again.
MR. KIRBY:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
There he goes again, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Now we are seeing more of
it, so it is just confirmation of what I just said, I guess, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this discussion this afternoon and this motion this afternoon is
about fiscal support by the federal government to our province. I don't know
of any reason why anybody in this House of Assembly would not support a
motion that's asking the federal government to consider the circumstances we
are in and provide fiscal support to our province, and also to have a look
at modernizing the federal-provincial arrangements. We know that includes
the Equalization Program and also the Fiscal Sustainability Program.
The
Fiscal Sustainability Program, the Premier talked this afternoon about I
think he used $31 million in his comments. To my recollection, I believe it
is about $32 million and that is about $60 per person, but $31 million or
$32 million is neither here nor there. This fund was established in the '60s
at $60 per person. So if we were to apply inflation to that today, that
means the Premier should actually be going to the federal government looking
for about $210 million. Because $1 today compared to the '60s is about seven
times the value. The Premier today really should be going to look for the
win of about $210 million.
If
you think about the HST that they reversed and I remember on budget day
last year, the Premier was out in the lobby on one side, and I remember the
Minister of Finance was on the other side of the lobby, the now Premier, who
was the Opposition Leader at the time, said we are going to do away with the
HST. We are not going to do the increase. I don't know where the
evidence-based decision making was. Minutes after we announced it, he said
he was going to do away with it.
He
also said that he'd have to look at how you deal with the public service. He
was very kind, very supportive and throughout the whole campaign said jobs
are safe and so on. What is interesting, the Minister of Finance, on budget
day last year, sat in the lobby of the House of Assembly talking to the
media and said until I get in to see the books, until we understand the
complexities, I can't tell you what part of government we're going to
eliminate, was her words. She was going to eliminate parts of government.
We
know that was a plan for a year ago, that if they were elected in the fall,
which they were and we have clearly articulated our respect for the
decision of the people she was going to eliminate parts of government. So
we hope they don't do that. We really hope.
I
remember back in 2012 when I was on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and
we laid off public servants. Well, the Opposition at the time, who is now
the government, I mean they just clobbered us day after day after day. The
Minister of Municipal Affairs especially at the time, who was a Member on
the Opposition, day after day and every day he came in he had a new number.
First he was talking about hundreds of employees we cut and then it became
thousands and thousands of employees; he just kept coming with a new number.
He clobbered us over the head for cutting public service, every single day
in the House in 2012. I remember that. Do you remember that? The Minister of
Municipal Affairs remembers when he came into the House, he used to do that.
He used to clobber us over the head.
Last
year when we had our budget we knew we had
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, I missed that.
He's saying it with a smile on his face, so it can't be too bad. What's
that?
MR. JOYCE:
Abandon ship.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Last year, we were quite
honest with the people of the province, Mr. Speaker. We were in an election
year, it was known as an election budget, and did we go in and promise the
world to people. We went in and said, look, we have to increase HST. We've
got to do this; $200 million annual value to the province. The Premier made
an evidence-based decision within seconds of us announcing that saying he's
going to cut the HST. He said it's a job killer.
Well, it's really interesting, in New Brunswick, the Liberal premier of New
Brunswick just increased the HST, did exactly the same thing we proposed and
has no evidence to say that it's a job killer. The Liberal premier of Nova
Scotia has publicly said that all of Atlantic Canada, all provinces in
Atlantic Canada, should have a 15 per cent HST. The last time I checked,
we're part of Atlantic Canada. That's the Liberal premier in Nova Scotia
said that and he said it before New Brunswick put theirs up, and now New
Brunswick has increased theirs to 15 per cent.
They
did it, by the way, after a 14-15 month consultation process almost
identical to what this government is doing. We know Members opposite had
some good friends. The Minister of Finance, when she was in Opposition last
year, came to the House and talked about the great trip she had in New
Brunswick. She talked about what she learned in New Brunswick. One of the
things she learned was to do a 14-15 month consultation process, go out to
the people of the province with what your plan is and ask them no, no,
they didn't do that, sorry. Go out to the people of the province with a
blank slate and ask them how they should fill in the blanks, what they
should do.
In
New Brunswick I know that for some time now they're calling it the
blame-it-on-the-people tour. The Government of New Brunswick said, well,
we're doing this because the people told us to do it. We made decisions
based on what people told us during our consultations. It's not our fault;
it's because that's what people told us to do. That's what they're calling
it now in New Brunswick; they're calling it the blame-it-on-the-people tour.
We know how the people in New Brunswick are responding to that.
We
talked about public-private partnerships. Oh no, they weren't going to have
any part of that. We talked about staff reductions, we talked about through
attrition and we talked about increasing revenue through HST. They weren't
going to have anything to do with that. Now, apparently, Mr. Speaker, all of
that's on the table today and that's now being considered. I'm glad they're
looking at those measures, because we do have to take measures we have to
take measures.
Now
the Premier talked this afternoon and it was interesting to listen to what
the Premier had to say, because he's thrown up his hands and he said it is
what it is. The Member for Mount Pearl North has articulated that and spoke
to that (inaudible) it is what it is.
The
Minister of Municipal Affairs, I hate to go back to him and give him credit
again, but he did say when he was over there you did say when you were on
your feet this afternoon, you talked about my relationship or lack of a
relationship with the prime minister. He was absolutely right he was
absolutely right. We worked with and met with and consulted with and
discussed and debated and went through countless meetings with the federal
government trying to conclude what they had promised to do.
The
day I walked out of the prime minister's office and I said that's a prime
minister you couldn't trust, I can tell you it was well fleshed out and
flushed out before I went to the people and said you can't trust him. He's
turned his back on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I'm sure Members
opposite and their federal friends, MPs, are glad we did that, because I'm
sure that didn't hurt him in the election this year when we said you can't
trust that prime minister.
That
was the position we took. We crossed what some would say were party lines
and we said, no, you can't trust him. And the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador spoke. You're right, they believed you can't trust him, and they
voted him out, and of course the prime minister is no longer the prime
minister. He's no longer the leader of the party and the party has moved on
and it's obvious the federal Conservatives are now taking a different
viewpoint in many of the areas with different leadership there.
Not
once when I took a position and I had a position with the prime minister
and yes, I did; I wasn't afraid to say here's what I'm doing and here's
where I am and this is my place. But not once did I throw my hands up and
say, well, it is what it is and that's all I can do. Because that's what we
heard from our Premier when it comes to equalization, when it comes to
funding and assistance from the federal government. He threw up his hands
and said that's all I can do that's all I can do.
I'm
not sure if my time has my time run out? I can see the clock is not
running, so
AN HON. MEMBER:
They stopped it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, they stopped it?
Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure you'll let me know when I'm getting
close to my time.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It's not, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's that?
Mr.
Speaker, what equalization is and I referenced this in my comments in the
response to the Speech from the Throne yesterday. Under the Constitution,
equalization is defined as this, and I quote: Parliament and the government
of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to
ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide
reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable
levels of taxation.
Mr.
Speaker, if the Premier was to increase the HST by 2 per cent, then now it's
being an equal level of taxation with the other parts of Atlantic Canada.
PEI is 14 per cent, but I suspect before long they're going to go to 15 per
cent as well. It would be a reasonable level, a comparable level of
taxation.
That
would better position and people are going to say, well if we need this
more money, we need this help, we need this assistance, instead of just
saying, well, that's all we can do and it is what it is. I believe we should
do that. I believe we should lobby. I'm sure the Premier I think one of
the speakers this afternoon said there's been four times that the Premier
and the prime minister met. We need to know, where has that gotten us and is
there value in that? Are we receiving benefit from that and are we going to
receive benefit from that? We should. Are we going to receive benefit?
We
know the Minister of Finance is taking action and made some policy
announcements in December. Except for one, they're all the same ones that we
announced previously. It was said in the House today that there's been $100
million in savings. I understand now that at some point in time I expect
she's going to correct that because I don't think that was the right
information. I expect she'll correct that.
The
government hasn't taken steps and bond-rating agencies look for that.
There's no denying this, when we brought our plan forward of a tax increase,
reduction of public service, looking at public-private partnerships as a way
for better value for taxpayers dollars when we brought that forward the
bond-rating agencies maintained the rating. From the glory days of highest
priced oil to those really tough challenges we had last year, we were very
clear, here's the price of oil, here's what we predict and, if it changes,
it's going to have an impact.
Even
our budget books indicate the impact is going to be $29 million for every
dollar we lose in oil. Our document said that, $29 million for every dollar
that oil drops. So that's about $30 million. If it dropped $20, that's $600
million. That's not difficult math to figure out.
We
know there was a considerable amount of drop in oil pricing since the
election last year. That's what happens. If oil goes up, we'd be in a much
better position, and if oil goes down, we're in a worse position.
Members opposite continue to talk about when the big, bad PCs were in power,
here's what they did and here's what they didn't do. You know, while we were
doing all the things I just talked about, while we were laying off staff in
2012 well, last year we brought forward a budget that said increase the
HST. We said we're going to reduce the number of staff.
Do
you know what the Opposition of the day, the Liberals, were doing? Every day
after day after day in Question Period they were asking us for more. They
wanted us to spend more. Every single day last spring, there might be a
couple of exceptions, they came to the House and if I remember correctly,
I remember researching this last year. I think in the first three weeks of
the spring sitting a year ago, the Liberal Opposition last year, I think it
was around $3 billion in additional spending they asked for in the House of
Assembly. I stand to be corrected, but if my recollection is correct, it was
about $3 billion.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It was $2.5 billion.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It was $2.5 billion, was
it? I'm told it was $2.5 billion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
They came in and asked
for hundreds of millions, billions of dollars day after day. While we were
trying to reduce spending, they were criticizing us for doing that. While we
were trying to reduce staff, we were being criticized for that; yet, they
asked for more.
Now
they have a different tune. There is a different tune today. Now the tune
today sounds much like we did last year. We can't spend everything. We can't
give everything you want.
I
say to the Minister of Fisheries, I'm glad to see you're here. I hear you
down there. It's good to see you're here. I'm glad to know we have a
Minister of Fisheries. We weren't sure until last week. We saw you at the
rally, but it's good to see you here.
MR. KENT:
How was Boston?
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's that?
MR. KENT:
How was Boston?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, he was in Boston,
too, but the Minister of Fisheries is here. I'm sure he's going to speak. It
won't be long and he'll be having questions, too.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I apologize.
The disruption is throwing me off. I apologize. Even my own Member is
disrupting me here and I apologize for him as well.
The
important part is they were elected. As the Minister of Finance just talked
about, yes, the people said to them we like all your promises, no job
layoffs. We like all your promises that you're not going to privatize. We
like your promises that you're not going to increase taxes. We like all
that, and they elected you based on that.
I
was asked this afternoon when I was out talking to the media, one of the
first questions they asked was: How long do you think the government is
going to blame everything on you? I said, well, you're going to have to ask
them. I don't know, but that's what we expected to happen. When there's a
change in government there would be a constant: Oh, it's your fault, your
fault, your fault.
Whose fault is it that Premier Brad Wall is where he is today? Or whose
fault is it where Alberta is today? Or whose fault is it where Ontario or
Quebec are with their matters today?
Mr.
Speaker, what this is about
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
wrap up very quickly.
What
this is about today, Mr. Speaker, is about asking the federal government to
support Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
We will support you in
that effort if you go to Ottawa, as you've been asking us for, we'll support
you. This is about the people of the province; it's about nothing else, the
people of the province first.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It being Private Members' Day, the House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.